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)

Download PDF
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-

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?