Vata v. Arden Courts

Filing 5

Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting re 2 Motion to dismiss On the Basis of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Or, In the Alternative, Due to Claim Preclusion filed by Arden Courts. Accordingly, this action is dismissed. The court cetifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 12/19/08. (E,P)

Vata v. Arden Courts

Doc. 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

CONSTANTIN VATA aka NICK VATA, Plaintiff, v. ARDEN COURTS, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO. 1:08 CV 2469 JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

On October 17, 2008, plaintiff pro se Constantin Vata filed the above-captioned in forma pauperis action, which seeks to challenge an Ohio court decision concerning an unsuccessful case filed by plaintiff against his former employer, Arden Courts. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on October 27, 2008. For the reasons stated below, the Motion to Dismiss is granted. United States District Courts do not have jurisdiction over challenges to state court decisions even if those challenges allege that the state court's action was unconstitutional. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483 n. 16 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). Federal appellate review of state court judgments can only occur in the United States Supreme Court, by appeal or by writ of certiorari. Id. Under this principle, generally referred to as the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, a party losing his case in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States District Court based on the party's claim that the state judgment itself violates his or her federal rights. Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994). Federal jurisdiction

Dockets.Justia.com

cannot be invoked merely by couching the claims in terms of a civil rights action. Lavrack v. City of Oak Park, No. 98-1142, 1999 WL 801562 *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 28, 1999); see also, Valenti v. Mitchell, 962 F.2d 288, 296 (3d Cir.1992). The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has applied two elements to a Rooker-Feldman analysis. First, in order for the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to apply to a claim presented in federal district court, the issue before the court must be inextricably intertwined with the claim asserted in the state court proceeding. Catz v. Chalker, 142 F.3d 279, 293 (6th Cir. 1998); see Tropf v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., 289 F.3d 929, 937 (6th Cir. 2002). "Where federal relief can only be predicated upon a conviction that the state court was wrong, it is difficult to conceive the federal proceeding as, in substance, anything other than a prohibited appeal of the state court judgment." Catz, 142 F.3d at 293. Second, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes a district court's jurisdiction where the claim is a specific grievance that the law was invalidly or unconstitutionally applied in plaintiff's particular case as opposed to a general constitutional challenge to the state law applied in the state action. Id.; Tropf, 289 F.3d at 937. The present action directly attacks the state court's decision dismissing Vata's case. Any review of the federal claims asserted in this context would require the court to review the specific issues addressed in the state court proceedings. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to conduct such a review or grant the relief as requested. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483-84 n. 16; Catz, 142 F.3d at 293. Moreover, to the extent that the plaintiff seeks to litigate anew matters which were previously decided by the state court, relief cannot be granted. A federal court must give a state court judgment the same preclusive effect it would have in the courts of the rendering state. 28 2

U.S.C. § 1738; Dubuc v. Green Oak Township, 312 F.3d 736, 744 (6th Cir. 2002). The preclusive effect of the previous state court judgments are therefore governed by Ohio law on preclusion. Id. Under Ohio law, an existing final judgment or decree is conclusive as to all claims which were or might have been litigated in the first lawsuit. National Amusement, Inc. v. Springdale, 53 Ohio St. 3d 60, 62 (1990). The doctrine of res judicata requires a plaintiff to present every ground for relief in the first action he files, or forever be barred from asserting it. Id. The purpose of this doctrine is to promote the finality of judgments and thereby increase certainty, discourage multiple litigation, and conserve judicial resources. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980). This court is bound to give full faith and credit to the decision of the state court.

Conclusion
Accordingly, this action is dismissed. The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.1 IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Patricia A. Gaughan PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Date: 12/19/08

1

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides: An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not taken in good faith. 3