Sigmon v. Hillen Tire et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 7/8/14. (c/m 7/8/14 bmhs, Deputy Clerk)

___
RLED
---LODGED

ENTERED
R.ECEIVED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

MICHAEL R. SIGMON
Plaintiff,
v.

*

HILLEN TIRE
THE HONORABLE JUDITH C. ENSOR
THE CIRCIUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE
COUNTY
LESLIE W. GAWLIK
Defendants.

*

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. RDB-14-2141

*

*
*****

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On July 2, 2014, Plaintiff, a resident ofHooverville, Pennsylvania, filed this Complaint under
28 U.S.c.

S

1331. He alleges that he suffers from mental health and medical cohditions cau~ing

him exhaustion and difficulty driving.

Plaintiff seemingly complains that he was not afforded the

opportunity of teleconferencing into an April 9, 2014 motions hearing held in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore County, Maryland in the case of Sigmon v. Hillen Tire. et al. Case No. 03C 14000594.

1

He contends that that court should have allowed him to attend the hearing by telephone as was done
by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in October of20 12. He asks that the Court remand his case
to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County with specific directions that he be allowed to attend the
hearing by telephone. Because Plaintiff satisfies indigency requirements, his Motion for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis shall be granted. The Complaint against Defendants shall, however, be

The state court docket reveals that on January 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Administrative
Agency Appeal of a Workers Compensation Commission decision. On April 9, 2014, a hearing was held
before Judge Judith Ensor. It appears that Judge Ensor ordered the case transferred to the Worker's
Compensation Commission.

summarily dismissed.
For all intents and purposes, Plaintiff is asking this Court to intervene in his state court
proceeding.

He asks that his case be "remanded" to the circuit court and that the state court be

compelled to provide him a special accommodation which would allow him a telephone hearing.
The Court is without jurisdiction to do so.
First, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,2 a federal court does not have jurisdiction to
overturn and remand a state court judgment, even when the federal complaint raises allegations that
the state court judgment violate a claimant's constitutional or federal statutory rights. In creating this
jurisdiction bar, the Supreme Court reasoned that because federal district courts have only original
jurisdiction, they lack appellate jurisdiction to review state court judgments.

3

In effect, the Rooker-

Feldman doctrine precludes federal court action "brought by state-court losers complaining of
injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced.

H

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 281 (2005).
Further, this Court has no authority to compel a state court to take action. A federal court
does not have jurisdiction over state entities or employees in an action for writ of mandamus. See
th

Gurleyv. Superior Court a/Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4 Cir. 1969); see alsoAT & T
Wireless PCS v. Winston-Salem Zoning Bd. a/Adjustment,

th

172 F.3d 307,312 n. 3 (4 Cir. 1999).

See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,482-86 (1983).
The Court explained that only the Supreme Court has federal court appellate jurisdiction over state
court judgments. See 28 U.S.C. ~ 1257.

2

4

For the aforementioned reasons, the Complaint shall be dismissed

A separate Order

follows this Opinion.

gaJJ.,~
RICHARD D. BENNETT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

•

Plaintiff may seek to challenge Judge Ensor's decision by filing a timely appeal.

3