HARRIS v. WALLIBILLICH et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 8/28/2018. (mps)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
GOLDA HARRIS,
Civ. No. 18-10279 (PGS-LHG)
Plaintiff,
v.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ALAN WALLIBILLICH, et al,
Defendants.
1.
Plaintiff Golda Harris filed a complaint in this Court on June 4,2018. (ECF No. 1).
2.
After originally administratively terminating the complaint due to Plaintiffs failure
to submit an account statement, the Court reopened the matter and granted Plaintiffs in forma
pauperis application under 28 U.S.C.
3.
§
1915 on August 22, 2018. (ECF No. 5).
This Court must now review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§
1915(e)(2)(B)
to determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from suit.
4.
Plaintiff seeks to appeal a decision from the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate
Division that affirmed a summary judgment decision dismissing her complaint against PNC Bank
and other defendants. (ECF No. 1-2 at 1 (citing Harris v. Wallibillich, No. A-2410-16T4 (N.J.
Super. Ct. App. Div. May 15, 2018)).
5.
Pursuant to the Rooker-Feidman Doctrine, federal district courts are barred from
hearing cases “that are essentially appeals from state-court judgments.” Great W Mining &
Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 165 (3d Cir. 2010). See also District of
Columbia Court ofAppeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263
U.S. 413 (1923). This doctrine requires meeting four elements: “(1) the federal plaintiff lost in
state court; (2) the plaintiff ‘complain[s] of injuries caused by [the] state-court judgments’; (3)
those judgments were rendered before the federal suit was filed; and (4) the plaintiff is inviting the
district court to review and reject the state judgments.” Id. at 166 (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v.
Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)).
6.
The instant “complaint” clearly meets all four elements. Plaintiff lost in the
Appellate Division and asserts the Appellate Division “violated [her] due process rights, fair and
equal treatment in a one-sided decision without considering the violations respondents PNC Bank,
N.A. committed in the appeal on the merits..
.
.“
(ECF No. 1-1 at 6). The judgment was rendered
on May 15, 2018, before Plaintiff filed her complaint on June 4, 2018. Finally, Plaintiff asks this
Court to reverse and remand the Appellate Division’s decision. This Court is barred from doing so
under Rooker-Feldman.
7.
The complaint is dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction.
8.
An appropriate order follows.
Date
Peter G. Sheridan, U.S.D.J.
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?