Scott v. Gusman, et al

Filing 14

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

JULIUS SCOTT

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-16117

MARLIN GUSMAN, SHERIFF OF
ORLEANS PARISH AND STANDARD
MORTGAGE CORPORATION

SECTION “B”(4)

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.

Failing

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
Court

explained

in

a

similar

matter,

“Plaintiff

attempts

to

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.
LEXIS

96688 at*6.

Furthermore,

“inferior

federal

courts

lack

jurisdiction

to

exercise

appellate

review

over

state

court

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.
Parker,

629

So.2d

475

(1993) (citing Bielkiewicz

v.

Insurance

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.”)).
Plaintiff

alleges

that

Defendants’

actions

violate

his

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.
Federal
jurisdiction
themselves.

courts
even

if

may
the

raise

the

parties

issue

have

not

of

subject

raised

the

matter
issue

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
Cir. 1999).).

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of November, 2016.

_____________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE