O'Connell et al v. Supreme Court of the State of Montana et al
Filing
8
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 in full. Plaintiffs' 2 Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' 7 Amended Complaint is also dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Susan P. Watters on 4/4/2014. (TAG, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION
DANIEL K. O'CONNELL and
VALERY A. O'CONNELL,
CV 14-00021-BLG-SPW
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
vs.
STATE OF MONTANA (MONTANA
SUPREME COURT) and WITTICH
LAW FIRM,
Defendants.
This action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Montana, Billings Division, on February 27, 2014. Plaintiffs seek to overturn a
decision by the Montana Supreme Court. (Doc. 1, 2). United States Magistrate
Judge Carolyn Ostby filed Findings and a Recommendation regarding Plaintiffs'
Complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 5). While she granted
Plaintiffs' motion to proceed in forma pauperis, she recommended their Complaint
be dismissed, finding this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over their claims.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), objections to the Findings and Recommendation
entered by Judge Ostby were due March 27, 2014. Plaintiffs submitted an
Amended Complaint on March 24, 2014. (Doc. 7). Therein, Plaintiffs said they
filed the Amended Complaint "as a result" of Judge Ostby's Findings and
1
Recommendation to Dismiss, in an attempt to "resolve[] th[e] jurisdiction issue by
clarifying and amending the injury and relief sought which are no longer
comparable to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine." !d. at 1. Accordingly, this Court
treats Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint as their objections to Judge Ostby's Findings
and Recommendation and discusses the same herein.
When a party objects to any portion of the Findings and Recommendation
issued by a Magistrate Judge, the district court must make a de novo determination
regarding that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B);
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach. Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313
(9th Cir. 1981). After de novo review of Judge Ostby's Findings and
Recommendation and Plaintiffs' objections to the same, I agree with Judge Ostby's
conclusion that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims,
even with their attempt to amend such claims in their Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I.
Discussion
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs ask this Court to reverse the Montana Supreme
Court's decision in Wittich Law Firm, P.C. v. 0 'Connell, 2014 MT 23N, DA 130580. (Doc. 1 at 7) ("Such liability against Daniel O'Connell should be reversed
and attorney fees reversed ... as a result of lack of jurisdiction"). As Judge Ostby
correctly pointed out, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits federal courts from
2
exercising appellate review over final state court judgments, particularly when the
losing party in state court is simply complaining of an injury caused by a state
court judgment and seeks federal court review and rejection of that judgment.
(Doc. 5 at 4-6). By asking this Court to reverse the Montana Supreme Court's
ruling, Plaintiffs' requested relief falls squarely within the prohibited review
category.
Plaintiffs' attempt to avoid dismissal through their Amended Complaint
fails. Despite recasting them as a due process claim, for all practical purposes,
Plaintiffs' claims and requested relief remains the same. For example, Plaintiffs
allege that the Montana Supreme Court did not "act reasonably" by upholding the
district court's contract liability award, because Daniel O'Connell never entered
the written contract in question. (Doc. 7 at 2). Plaintiffs further contend that by
upholding the district court, the Montana Supreme Court deprived them of their
due process rights and request this Court grant them declaratory relief as a result.
!d. at 3.
Although phrased somewhat differently from their original Complaint,
Plaintiffs have simply re-alleged that the Montana Supreme Court got the facts of
their case wrong and as a result, this Court should review and reject the Montana
Supreme Court's decision. !d. at 3-4. Review by this Court on this basis is
prohibited. See Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir.
3
2008) ("The clearest case for dismissal based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
occurs when a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous
decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that
decision") (quoting Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 613 (9th
Cir.2007)). This is because Rooker-Feldman 's jurisdictional bar extends to actions
that are de facto appeals from state court judgments in that the federal claims "are
inextricably intertwined with the state court's decision such that the adjudication of
the federal claims would undercut the state ruling or require the district court to
interpret the application of state laws or procedural rules." !d. Undercutting the
Montana Supreme Court's decision in O'Connell is the basis for Plaintiffs' request
for declaratory relief in their Amended Complaint. (Doc. 7 at 4-6).
Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the claims alleged in their original
Complaint are more than a de facto appeal from a state court judgment and thus,
any decision by this Court with respect to those claims "would undercut the state
ruling" that currently exists. !d. As a result, this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims. !d. at 860. Because Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint states essentially the same claims and requests for relief, albeit in
different language, it similarly fails to endow this Court with any jurisdiction over
their claims.
4
II.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Judge Ostby's Findings and
Recommendation, (Doc. 5), are ADOPTED IN FULL. Plaintiffs' Complaint is
DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is also
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to close this
matter and enter judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to have the
docket reflect that the Court certifies pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3)(A) that
any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. The record makes
plain the instant Complaint is frivolous as it lacks arguable substance in law or
fact.
DATED this Jriay of April, 2014.
Susan P. Watters
United States District Court
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?