Rogers v. Gerou

Filing 4

OPINION and ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Sua Sponte Dismissing 1 Complaint with Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (Loury, R)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PAULLETO ROGERS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Case No. 14-13191
Honorable Linda V. Parker

MICHAEL J. GEROU,
Defendant.
_______________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUA SPONTE DISMISSING
COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
On August 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Michael J. Gerou, a
judge in Michigan’s 35th District Court in Plymouth, Michigan. Plaintiff has filed
an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. (ECF No. 2.)
For the reasons that follow, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to
adjudicate Plaintiff’s Complaint and therefore is summarily dismissing this action
with prejudice and denying Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.
In her Complaint, Plaintiff challenges Judge Gerou’s adjudication of a case
for which she was before him on April 20, 2014, where Plaintiff appears to have
been found guilty of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. (ECF No. 1.) She asks
this Court to sanction Judge Gerou for holding her in contempt of court, to dismiss

the case, and to restore her driver privileges. (Id.) Plaintiff also requests a federal
subopoena for what appears to be a Michigan police officer and the appointment of
a pro bono attorney to represent her. (Id.)
At any time, a district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
when the allegations therein “are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial,
frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183
F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37
(1974) and In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 300 (6th Cir. 1988)). There are
several reasons why Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous and devoid of merit.
First and foremost, pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal courts
lack jurisdiction to review a case litigated and decided in state court. District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 & n.16 (1983); Rooker
v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). This is true even in the face of
allegations that “the state court’s action was unconstitutional.” Feldman, 460 U.S.
at 486; see also Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227, 233-34 (6th Cir. 1996).
Review of final determinations in state judicial proceedings can be obtained only in
the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1257; Feldman, 460 U.S. at 476,
103 S. Ct. at 1311. A fair reading of Plaintiff’s Complaint reveals that the present
2

action is an impermissible attack of the proceedings and judgment in the case
before Judge Gerou.
While Plaintiff can bring a federal complaint alleging, for example, a
violation of her rights in the state court proceedings before Judge Gerou, she first
must succeed in having her conviction set aside through the established state court
appeals process or the filing of a federal writ of habeas corpus. See Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a
state prisoner cannot make a cognizable claim ... for an allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or for “harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a
conviction or sentence invalid” unless a prisoner shows that the conviction or
sentence has been “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or
called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Id. at
486-87 (footnote omitted). The holding in Heck has been extended to actions
seeking injunctive or declaratory relief. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641,
646 (1997) (declaratory relief); Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189-90 (5th Cir.
1998) (claim for injunctive relief intertwined with request for damages); Wilson v.
Kinkela, No. 97-4035, 1998 WL 246401, at *1 (6th Cir. May 5, 1998) (injunctive
relief).
3

Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff is seeking to hold Judge Gerou liable for his
conduct in the state court proceedings, he is entitled to absolute judicial immunity.
See Bush v. Rauch, 38 F.3d 842, 847 (6th Cir. 1994) (explaining that “[i]t is well
established that judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from suits for
money damages for all actions taken in the judge’s judicial capacity, unless these
actions are taken in the complete absence of any jurisdiction”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis is DENIED.
S/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 25, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, August 25, 2014, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
S/ Richard Loury
Case Manager

4