Scott v. Gusman, et al
ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that the captioned action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may seek reconsideration/new trial if he shows good cause for same no later than Friday, December 9, 2016 as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 11/22/2016.(mmv)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARLIN GUSMAN, SHERIFF OF
ORLEANS PARISH AND STANDARD
ORDER AND REASONS
IT IS ORDERED that the captioned action is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may seek reconsideration/new trial if he
shows good cause for same no later than Friday, December 9, 2016
with a memorandum and authority addressing the issue of this
Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over his claims.
that, a dismissal and judgment with prejudice will be issued.
Federal courts do not sit as appellate tribunals over state
court decisions. Hattier v. Nethery, Case No. 05-411, 2006 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 96688 at*6-7 (E.D. La. Jan. 31, 2006) (citing Phelper
v. Decker, 401 F.2d 232, 239 (5th Cir. 1968).) In Hattier, this
circumvent the state appellate and writ process by bringing the
present action in federal court and seeking this Court’s review of
the state courts’ actions. Federal courts do not sit as superappellate tribunals over state courts.” Hattier, 2006 U.S. Dist.
decisions.” Ingalls v. Erlewine (In re Erlewine), 349 F.3d 205,
209 (5th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff has available relief from the state
court decisions at issue by seeking appellate review within an
appropriate state court. Housing Authority for City of Ferriday v.
(1993) (citing Bielkiewicz
Company of North America, 201 So.2d 130 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1967)
(“When an appeal is taken from a final judgment, the appellant is
entitled to a review of all adverse interlocutory rulings in
addition to review of the final judgment.”)).
federally protected due process rights under the United States
Constitution and the Equal Protection Laws under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution (Rec. Doc.
11 at 4). Plaintiff requests this Court to render judgement in
this and against Defendants, declaring any constitutional immunity
asserted by the Defendant Marlin Gusman null and void and enjoining
the state court seizure and sale of his residence by Defendant
Standard Mortgage Corporation.
Gaar v. Quirk, 86 F.3d 451, 453 (5th Cir. 1996). “A
court may dismiss, sua sponte, a complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, but first should give the plaintiff notice
and the opportunity to respond.” Kraemer v. United States, Case
No. H-00-2948, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8662, at*23, (S.D. Tex. 2002)
(quoting and citing Benson v. O'Brian, 179 F.3d 1014, 1015 (6th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of November, 2016.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?