Rosado v. Depalo et al

Filing 7

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot, and Rosado is not required to pay a filing fee in this action. [Copy of order mailed to plaintiff on 5/3/2018.](PSSA, 3) Modified on 5/3/2018 to correct date (PSSA, 3).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
CHRISTIAN ROSADO,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
)
PATRICK T. DEPALO, JR., et al., )
Defendants.
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
18-10706-NMG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GORTON, J.
Pro se plaintiff Christian Rosado (“Rosado”), who is
confined at the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center, brings
this civil rights action in which he challenges his
classification as a member of a Security Threat Group (“STG”).
For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses this action
for lack of jurisdiction.
I.

Background
The Court summarizes the most relevant allegations of the

complaint. (Dkt. #1).

In November 2014, when Rosado was

confined at MCI Concord, prison staff conducted a search of the
dormitory in which he was housed.

One of the officers found a

photograph among Rosado’s personal property that led him to

believe that Rosado was part of an STG.

No disciplinary report

was issued at the time.
In January 2015, Rosado was informed that an investigation
was being opened into his possible affiliation with an STG.

On

February 6, 2015, Defendant Patrick T. Depalo, Jr. (“Depalo”),
the Chief of the Office of Investigative Services for the
Massachusetts Department of Correction, held a hearing in which
he accused Rosado of being a member of the “Latin Kings” STG.
Only Rosado and Depalo were present at the hearing, and Rosado
did not have an opportunity to present witnesses or confront the
officer who had found the photo that purportedly showed that
Rosado was affiliated with an STG.

Rosado vehemently denied any

involvement or affiliation with the Latin Kings group.
On February 12, 2015, Depalo notified Rosado that he was
being designated as a member of the Latin Kings for security
classification purposes.

Rosado appeal to the defendant Carol

O’Brian, the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of
Correction, who rejected the appeal.
On May 11, 2015, Rosado filed a civil action in Middlesex
Superior Court against Depalo and O’Brian in which he alleged,
inter alia, that the defendants’ system of validating him as an
STG member violated his right to due process under the
Fourteenth Amendment and state law.

2

See Rosado v. Higgins-

O’Brien, et al., 1581CV02941 (Middlesex Superior Court, Mass.). 1
The state court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
finding that Rosado’s “due process claim must fail because his
liberty interest was not infringed by his designation as a [sic]
STG.”

Dkt. 1-1 at 5.

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts

affirmed, reiterating that “[t]he decision to designate the
plaintiff as a member of an STG does not . . . implicate a
liberty interest arising from the due process clause.”

Rosado

v. Comm’r of Corr., 91 Mass. App. Ct. 547, 552 (2017).

On March

2, 2018, the Supreme Judicial Court denied Rosado’s application
for further appellate review.

See Rosado v. Comm’r of Corr.,

479 Mass. 1103 (2018).
In the present complaint, Rosado contends that the state
trial and appellate courts failed to apply federal law properly.
He further states that “[i]ndependent review is needed to
correct the wrong practices and the vague security threat group
proceeding with Defendant Patrick T. Depalo.”
II.

Compl. ¶ 39.

Discussion
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, prisoner complaints in civil

actions that seek redress from a governmental entity or officers

1In

addition to describing his state court action in the body of
the complaint, Rosado submitted various papers from the state
court action as exhibits. See Dkt. #1-1, #1-2.
3

or employees of a governmental entity are subject to a
preliminary screening.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

Further, a

court has an obligation to inquire into its own subject matter
jurisdiction, see McCulloch v. Velez, 364 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.
2004), and “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action,”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

In conducting this review, the Court

liberally construes Rosado’s complaint because he is proceeding
pro se.

See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1257, the Supreme Court of the United
States is the only federal court with jurisdiction to review a
state court judgment.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1257; see also Exxon

Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 292
(2005).

Thus, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, 1 28 U.S.C.

§ 1257 prohibits a district court from exercising subject matter
jurisdiction over an action brought by a party who lost in state
court and who is “seeking review and rejection of that judgment”
in a lower federal court.

Exxon Mobile, 544 U.S. at 291; see

also id. at 292 (“The Rooker–Feldman doctrine merely recognizes
that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is a grant of original jurisdiction, and

1The

term “Rooker-Feldman doctrine” is shorthand reference to the
Supreme Court’s interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1257 in District
of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) and
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).
4

does not authorize district courts to exercise appellate
jurisdiction over state-court judgments, which Congress has
reserved to this Court, see § 1257(a).” (quoting Verizon Md.,
Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 644 n.3
(2002))).
Here, Rosado explicitly asks this Court to review and
reject the judgments of the state court.

Under the Rooker-

Feldman doctrine, the Court lacks jurisdiction to do so.

“[T]he

proper forum for challenging an unlawful state court ruling is
the United States Supreme Court, on appeal of the highest state
court’s final judgment.”

Davison v. Gov’t of Puerto Rico-Puerto

Rico Firefighters Corps, 471 F.3d 220, 223 (1st Cir. 2006).
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
lack of jurisdiction.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is denied as moot, and Rosado is not required to pay a
filing fee in this action.
SO ORDERED.

/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated: 5/2/2018

5