Mitrano v. United States of America et al

Filing 30

ORDER denying 29 MOTION for Reconsideration re 28 Clerk's Judgment filed by Peter P. Mitrano. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 4/4/2017. (Copy of Order mailed to Plt Mitrano) (ACC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION
PETER P. MITRANO,
Plaintiff,

CV-16-13-GF-BMM

vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and
KERI A. ADORISIO,

ORDER

Defendants.

The Court issued its Judgment in this case on February 7, 2017. (Doc. 28).
The Court dismissed this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Docs. 27,
28). Plaintiff Peter Mitrano (Mitrano) has filed a motion for relief from judgment.
Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a district court to
vacate a judgment based upon a showing of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment;
(5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Mitrano argues that the Judgment entered by the Court on
February 7, 2017, should be set aside because the Court erred when it determined
that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred his claim for declaratory relief.

Mitrano’s claim for declaratory relief requested that the Court declare a child
custody order issued by the Lebanon Family Court in Lebanon, New Hampshire
void as a matter of law. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “prohibits a federal district
court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal
from a state court judgment.” Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th
Cir. 2004). The Court did not err when it dismissed Mitrano’s claim for declaratory
relief.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
Mitrano’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 29) is DENIED.
DATED this 4th day of April, 2017.

-2-