FINNEMEN v. MCCRINK et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that this case shall remain Administratively Closed, pending Plaintiff's filing of an Amended Complaint within 30 days of this Court's 2 Order filed 7/31/2015. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 8/20/2015. (TH, )
[Dkt. Ent. 4]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
NASIR FINNEMEN,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 15-5795 (RMB/JS)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
v.
HON. KRISDEN MCCRINK, HON.
RICHARD F. WELLS, WILLIAM
STOPPER,
Defendants.
BUMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Nasir
Finnemen’s August 17, 2015 filing of a purported exhibit to his
Complaint filed July 27, 2015.
[Dkt. Ent. 4.]
As discussed
below, Plaintiff has failed to amend the Complaint in a manner
consistent with the Court’s prior instruction and, as such, the
case will remain administratively closed.
The claims in the original Complaint against Judge Krisden
McCrink, Judge Richard Wells and William Stopper were dismissed
with prejudice on July 31, 2015 and the case was
administratively closed.
[Dkt. Ent. 2.]
Nevertheless, the
Court permitted Plaintiff thirty days to amend his complaint to
allege additional facts concerning a briefly-mentioned potential
1
claim of excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two
Mount Ephraim police officers who arrested him.
3.)
(See Cmplt. at
Plaintiff’s most recent filing does not allege additional
facts concerning his arrest, but rather provides additional
facts concerning his legal proceedings before Judge McCrink and
Judge Wells.
Construing Plaintiff’s pleadings liberally, and
treating his most recent filing as an amendment to his initial
Complaint, the Court sees no reason to administratively open the
case given Plaintiff’s failure to allege additional facts on his
one potentially viable claim.
Moreover, screening the Complaint as amended, the result
would still be dismissal.
Under the liberal construction given
to pro se pleadings, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
(1972), the new facts Plaintiff has provided concern litigation
before Judge McCrink and Judge Wells which fail to state a claim
for the same reason as the previous set of allegations.
To wit,
Plaintiff’s new allegations take issue with Plaintiff’s
proceedings in state court and his denial there of fee waivers.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars district court review of state
court decisions.
See Tammera v. Grossman, No. 10-569, 2010 WL
1372406, at *4 (D.N.J. 2010); see also Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S.
459, 463 (2006) (“[U]nder what has come to be known as the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts are precluded from
exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court
2
judgments.”).
Accordingly, review by this Court of the state
court’s decisions is improper.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY on this 20th day of August 2015,
ORDERED that the case shall remain administratively closed,
pending Plaintiff’s filing of an amended complaint within 30
days of this Court’s July 31, 2015 Order, consistent with the
instructions in that Order; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Opinion
and Order upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. Mail, to Plaintiff’s
most recent address at 509 South 4th St., Camden, NJ 08103.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
3
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?