Gamble v. Third Federal Savings & Loan Association of Cleveland
Filing
4
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed under section 1915(e). Further, 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. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 10/20/11. re 2 , 3 (LC,S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CECELIA GAMBLE aka CECELIA DANZY,
Plaintiff,
v.
THIRD FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN
ASSOCIATION OF CLEVELAND,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:11 CV 2231
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
)
AND ORDER
)
)
)
Introduction
On October 19, 2011, Plaintiff pro se Cecelia Gamble filed this in forma pauperis action
against Third Federal Savings and Loan Association. The two page Complaint (Doc. 1), which does
not cite a specific basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, alleges a judgment of foreclosure in the Stark
County Court of Common Pleas was granted to Defendant on Plaintiff’s property, and that a sheriff’s
sale is scheduled for October 24, 2011. Plaintiff states that prior to the entry of judgment in that
case, Defendant did not comply with a mediation order, and that she has applied for funds through
the Ohio Finance Agency. The Complaint seeks an order canceling the sheriff’s sale.1
Standard of Review
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the district court is required to
1
Plaintiff has also filed an Emergency Motion to Withdraw Sheriff’s Sale (Doc. 3).
dismiss an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.2 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989);
Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197
(6th Cir. 1996).
Discussion
This Court cannot vacate the Stark County Common Pleas Court judgment, nor enjoin the
execution of the judgment. 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 a state court case 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 her federal rights. Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994). Federal
jurisdiction 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, at *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 28, 1999); see
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 RookerFeldman 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
2
A claim may be dismissed sua sponte, without prior notice to the plaintiff and
without service of process on the defendant, if the court explicitly states that it is
invoking section 1915(e) [formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)] and is dismissing the claim for
one of the reasons set forth in the statute. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 60809 (6th Cir. 1997); Spruytte v. Walters, 753 F.2d 498, 500 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied,
474 U.S. 1054 (1986); Harris v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986); Brooks v.
Seiter, 779 F.2d 1177, 1179 (6th Cir. 1985).
-2-
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. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies when the party losing her
case in state court files suit in federal district court seeking redress for an injury allegedly caused by
the state court's decision itself. Coles v. Granville, 448 F.3d 853, 857-59 (6th Cir. 2006). 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.
In the present action, Plaintiff essentially questions the state court’s decision granting
foreclosure, and execution of the judgment in that case. Adjudication of any 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
requested. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483-84 n. 16; Catz, 142 F.3d at 293.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed
under section 1915(e). Further, 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: 10/20/11
-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?