Jones v. Safarik

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's application to proceed In Forma Pauperis and dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge John R. Adams on 11/18/15. (K,C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

JASON KEITH JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
KATHERINE L. SAFARIK,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:15 CV 1860
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Jason Keith Jones brings this action against Katherine L. Safarik. He claims
Safarik has illegally and unlawfully claimed ownership of his three children to whom he refers as
his “Registered Property.” He seeks monetary damages and asks this Court to void judgments from
the Medina County Domestic Relations Court and three adoption petitions in the Wayne County
Probate Court because they “trespass the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s said Registered Property.”
(ECF No. 1 at 10).

I.

Background
Plaintiff’s Complaint is almost composed entirely of meaningless rhetoric. He claims to be

the “sole registered owner of record and entitlement holder having a direct ownership equity and
beneficial interest in” in his children’s birth certificates and therefore he has a property interest in
his children. He contends their mother, the Defendant, “has stolen and trespassed [his] Registered
Property” and is withholding them without his consent. He states Defendant is interfering with his
First Amendment right to religious freedom without persecution. He indicates he is a Messianic
Hebrew Levite but Defendant engages in “racial rants in which [she] degrades the Plaintiff as being
‘Jewish’ when she knows he is not.” He also claims she denied him his First Amendment right of
Freedom of Association by withholding his “Registered Property” from him.

He seeks

$1,250,000.00 in damages, and immediate return of his children. He also asks this Court to void the
decisions of the Medina County Domestic Relations Court and the Wayne County Probate Court
claiming they are actually private corporations and have no jurisdiction over him or his “Registered
Property.”

II.

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
dismiss an in forma pauperis 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. 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). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised on an

-2-

indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490
U.S. at 327. A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks
“plausibility in the complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007).
A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The factual allegations in the
pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption
that all the allegations in the complaint are true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The Plaintiff is not
required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned, the
defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading that offers legal
conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading
standard. Id. In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998).

III.

Analysis
Plaintiff lists only two discernable causes of action, and both arise under the First

Amendment. The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S. CONST. amend. I. It restricts government action, not
the actions of individuals. To bring an action against an individual Defendant, Plaintiff must proceed
under one of the civil rights statutes which authorizes an award of damages for alleged constitutional
violations. Sanders v. Prentice-Hall Corp. Sys, 178 F.3d 1296 (6th Cir. 1999). As no other statutory

-3-

provision appears to present an even arguably viable vehicle for the assertion of Plaintiff’s claims,
the Court construes these claims as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
To establish a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must assert that a person
acting under color of state law deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981). Generally
to be considered to have acted “under color of state law,” the person must be a state or local
government official or employee. The Defendant in this case is the mother of Plaintiff’s children.
She is not a government official. A private party may be found to have acted under color of state law
to establish the first element of this cause of action only when the party “acted together with or ...
obtained significant aid from state officials” and did so to such a degree that its actions may properly
be characterized as “state action.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982). An
individual may also be considered a state actor if he or she exercises powers traditionally reserved
to a state. Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 352 (1974). Plaintiff does not allege
any facts to suggest Defendant may be considered a state actor under § 1983. He fails to state a
claim for relief against the Defendant.
Furthermore, this Court cannot void the orders of a state domestic relations or probate court.
United States District Courts do not have jurisdiction to overturn state court decisions even if the
request to reverse the state court judgment is based on an allegation that the state court’s action was
unconstitutional. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 292 (2005).
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-

-4-

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. Berry v. Schmitt 688 F.3d 290,
298-99 (6th Cir. 2012).
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is based on two United States Supreme Court decisions
interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a).1 See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S.
462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct.
149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). This statute was enacted to prevent “end-runs around state court
judgments” by requiring litigants seeking review of that judgment to file a writ of certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is based on the negative inference that,
if appellate court review of state judgments is vested in the United States Supreme Court, then such
review may not occur in the lower federal courts. Exxon Mobil Corp., 544 U.S. at 283-84; Kovacic
v. Cuyahoga County Dep't of Children and Family Services, 606 F.3d 301, 308-311 (6th Cir. 2010);
Lawrence v. Welch, 531 F.3d 364, 369 (6th Cir. 2008).

1

28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) provides:
Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a
State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the
Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty
or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the
validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the
ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or
laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or
immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or
the treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority
exercised under, the United States.
-5-

Rooker-Feldman is a doctrine with narrow application. It does not bar federal jurisdiction
“simply because a party attempts to litigate in federal court a matter previously litigated in state
court.” Exxon Mobil Corp., 544 U.S. at 293; Berry, 688 F.3d 298-99. It also does not address
potential conflicts between federal and state court orders, which fall within the parameters of the
doctrines of comity, abstention, and preclusion. Berry, 688 F.3d 299. Instead, the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine applies only where a party losing his or her case in state court initiates an action in federal
district court complaining of injury caused by a state court judgment itself, and seeks review and
rejection of that judgment. Berry, 688 F.3d 298-99; In re Cook, 551 F.3d 542, 548 (6th Cir.2009).
To determine whether Rooker–Feldman bars a claim, the Court must look to the “source of the injury
the Plaintiff alleges in the federal complaint.” McCormick v. Braverman, 451 F.3d 382, 393 (6th
Cir.2006); see Berry, 688 F.3d at 299; Kovacic, 606 F.3d at 310. If the source of the Plaintiff’s
injury is the state-court judgment itself, then the Rooker–Feldman doctrine bars the federal claim.
McCormick, 451 F.3d at 393. “If there is some other source of injury, such as a third party’s actions,
then the Plaintiff asserts an independent claim.” Id.; see Lawrence, 531 F.3d at 368–69. In
conducting this inquiry, the Court should also consider the Plaintiff’s requested relief. Evans v.
Cordray, No. 09–3998, 2011 WL 2149547, at *1 (6th Cir. May 27, 2011).
In this case, Plaintiff specifically asks this Court to void the orders of the Medina County
Domestic Relations Court and the Wayne County Probate Court. This Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to grant that relief.

IV.

Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted, and this action

-6-

is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). 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.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: November 18, 2015

/s/ John R. Adams
JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.
-7-