Tocarchick v. Lutheran Social Services of Michigan et al

Filing 9

OPINION and ORDER of Summary Dismissal. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SUSAN TOCARCHICK,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Case No. 17-11445
Honorable Linda V. Parker

LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF
MICHIGAN and LUTHERAN
ADOPTION SERVICES OF MICHIGAN,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
On May 2, 2017, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit against Defendants Lutheran
Social Services of Michigan and Lutheran Adoption Services of Michigan.
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. For the reasons that follow, the Court is summarily dismissing the
Complaint pursuant to § 1915.
Section 1915 requires a court to dismiss a case in which the plaintiff
proceeds in forma pauperis “at any time if the court determines that . . . (B) the
action or appeal– (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint is frivolous if
it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989). The term “frivolous” “embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion,

but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Id. at 325. Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject
to dismissal because she fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
As the first page of Plaintiff’s Complaint reflects, she is attempting through
this action to “appeal” the disposition of a lawsuit she filed against Defendants in
the Circuit Court for Macomb County, Michigan. (ECF Nos. 1-1 at Pg ID 1, 1-2 at
Pg Id 134, 164-171); see also Tocarchick v. Lutheran Soc. Servs. of Mich., No.
2015-004254-CZ (Macomb Cty. Cir. Ct. filed Nov. 30, 2015). Federal district
courts, however, generally lack jurisdiction to review and determine the validity of
state court judgments. See, e.g. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,
544 U.S. 280, 283 (2005) (“emphasiz[ing] that appellate jurisdiction to reverse or
modify a state-court judgment is lodged, initially by § 25 of the Judiciary Act of
1789, 1 Stat. 85, and now by 28 U.S.C. § 1257, exclusively in [the United States
Supreme Court.”). Instead, review of final determinations in state judicial
proceedings can be obtained only in the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1257.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff’s
Complaint is SUMMARILY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28

2

U.S.C. § 1915.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 2, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, June 2, 2017, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager

3