Harris v. Madison

Filing 4

OPINION and ORDER Summarily Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint and Denying Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LEPAY HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 17-13637
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
LATASHA MADISON,
Defendant.
________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS
On November 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendant and an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff states in his Complaint that he
is seeking to set aside an order of filiation and requests DNA testing to show that
he in fact is not the father of Defendant’s child. For the reasons that follow, this
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiff’s Complaint and
therefore is summarily dismissing this action and denying Plaintiff’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis.
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, 94
S. Ct. 1372 (1974) and In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 300 (6th Cir. 1988)).
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, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 1315 & n.16 (1983);
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S. Ct. 149, 150 (1923).
This is true even in the face of allegations that “the state court’s action was
unconstitutional.” Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486, 103 S. Ct. at 1317; 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 through the state
courts and, then, in the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1257; Feldman,
460 U.S. at 476, 103 S. Ct. at 1311.
Plaintiff is challenging a state court order. His claims are precisely the type
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes this Court from reviewing. Plaintiff’s
request for relief, including an appeal of the state court’s order, must be pursued
through the Michigan state courts.
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: November 30, 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, November 30, 2017, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager