Decker-Wegener v. Wegener et al

Filing 2

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #1, page 1] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint, because the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A separate order of dismissal shall accompany this memorandum and order. Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 05/13/2010. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

JUDITH A. DECKER-WEGENER, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL A. WEGENER, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 4:10CV846 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court upon the motion of Judith A. Decker-Wegener for leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).1 The Court will grant plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court may dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis at any time if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must give the complaint

The Court will liberally construe page 1 of plaintiff's complaint [Doc. #1] as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

1

the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). The complaint Plaintiff brings this action seeking an order granting her a new trial in a state court matter. She claims that "new evidence and plain errors" justify a new trial. Having carefully reviewed plaintiff's allegations, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Federal district courts are courts of original jurisdiction; they lack subject matter jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of state court decisions. Postma v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan, 74 F.3d 160, 162 (8th Cir. 1996). In accordance with the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #1, page 1] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint, because the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A separate order of dismissal shall accompany this memorandum and order. Dated this 13th day of May, 2010.

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

3