AUSTIN v. STAVROS et al
Filing
6
REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER SCREENING COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1915(e) re 1 Complaint filed by CHRISTOPHER AUSTIN. Objections to R&R due by 7/9/2018 By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (MFS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
CHRISTOPHER AUSTIN,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff
v.
JUDGE MARILYN STAVROS,
et al.,
Defendants
2:18-cv-00247-GZS
RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER SCREENING COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)
Plaintiff filed a complaint in which he seeks relief from a judgment entered in the
state court. (Complaint at 4, ECF No. 1.) Defendants consist of two state court judges and
an enforcement officer with a state agency.
Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3), which the
Court granted. (ECF No. 5.) In accordance with the in forma pauperis statute, a preliminary
review of Plaintiff’s complaint is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Following a review of Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), I
recommend the Court dismiss the matter.
Discussion
The federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, is designed to ensure
meaningful access to the federal courts for those persons unable to pay the costs of bringing
an action. When a party is proceeding in forma pauperis, however, “the court shall dismiss
the case at any time if the court determines,” that the action is “frivolous or malicious” or
“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted” or “seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). “Dismissals
[under § 1915] are often made sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare
prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).
When considering whether a complaint states a claim for which relief may be
granted, courts must assume the truth of all well-plead facts and give the plaintiff the
benefit of all reasonable inferences therefrom. Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640
F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Although a pro se plaintiff’s complaint is subject to “less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), this is
“not to say that pro se plaintiffs are not required to plead basic facts sufficient to state a
claim,” Ferranti v. Moran, 618 F.2d 888, 890 (1st Cir. 1980). To allege a civil action in
federal court, it is not enough for a plaintiff merely to allege that a defendant acted
unlawfully; a plaintiff must affirmatively allege facts that identify the manner by which the
defendant subjected the plaintiff to a harm for which the law affords a remedy. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
In this case, Plaintiff alleges that in a state court proceeding, Defendant Stavros
improperly entered a child support judgment against him, Defendant McLeod, an agent
with the Department of Health and Human Services Department, threatened to revoke his
2
driver’s license, evidently as the result of the state court proceedings and the judgment, and
Defendant Gorman prevented him from obtaining a writ of habeas corpus in connection
with the judgment. (Complaint at 4.)
“‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,’ possessing ‘only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute.’” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013)
(quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). “It
is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of
establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S.
at 377 (citation omitted). “A court is duty-bound to notice, and act upon, defects in its
subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.” Spooner v. EEN, Inc., 644 F.3d 62, 67 (1st Cir.
2011).
“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents the lower federal courts from exercising
jurisdiction over cases brought by ‘state-court losers’ challenging ‘state-court judgments
rendered before the district court proceedings commenced.’” Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S.
459, 460 (2006) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280,
284 (2005)); Walczak v. Mass. State Retirement Bd., 141 F.3d 1150 (1st Cir. 1998)
(unpublished) (citing District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476
(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923)). Here, through his
request for the Court to “dismiss [the] void judgment” entered in the state court (Complaint
at 4), Plaintiff clearly challenges the validity of decisions of the state court and the
consequences of the decisions. To grant Plaintiff the relief he seeks, the Court would have
3
to vacate or invalidate a state court judgment. Plaintiff is precluded by the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine from pursuing such relief in this Court.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, following a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2), I recommend the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate
judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district
court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen
(14) days of being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court's order.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 25th day of June, 2018.
4
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?