Feeley v. Earl et al
Filing
18
ORDER: The Court concludes Plaintiff's appeal is frivolous, and, therefore, Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status should not continue for his appeal. Signed on 10/4/17 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (Copy e-mailed to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.) (gm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
AARON SCOTT FEELEY,
Plaintiff,
3:17-cv-00649-PK
ORDER
v.
ALLAN R. EARL, et al.,
Defendants.
BROWN, Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the Ninth Circuit's
Referral Notice, Case No. 17-35782, referring Plaintiff's appeal
to this Court for the sole purpose of determining whether
Plaintiff's "in forma pauperis status should continue for this
appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith."
The Court concludes Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status
should not continue for appeal.
1 -
ORDER
BACKGROUND
On April 24, 2017, Plaintiff Aaron Scott Feeley filed an
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a pro se Complaint
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against two Nevada
state trial court judges and a Nevada state-court appointed
trustee.
On June 27, 2017, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued
Findings and Recommendation in which he recommended the Court
dismiss this matter sua sponte with prejudice on the grounds that
(1) Plaintiff's claims for declaratory relief are a de
facto appeal of a Nevada state-court matter, and, therefore, they
are barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine;
(2) Plaintiff's claims
for declaratory relief are also barred by the doctrine of claim
preclusion;
(3) Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief are
barred by the Younger abstention doctrine or, in the alternative,
barred by the probate exception to this Court's jurisdiction;
and/or (4) Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to
establish that this Court has personal jurisdiction over
Defendants.
The Magistrate Judge also recommended this Court
deny Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as
moot.
On July 25, 2017, this Court issued an Order adopting as
modified the Findings and Recommendation.
Specifically, the
Court granted Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma
2 - ORDER
Pauperis and dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice.
The
Court also entered a Judgment dismissing this matter with
prejudice.
On September 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal.
On September 28, 2017, the Ninth Circuit, as noted, referred
Plaintiff's appeal to this Court for the sole purpose of
determining whether Plaintiff's "in forma pauperis status should
continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or
taken in bad faith."
As noted, Plaintiff's claims were barred in their entirety
in this Court by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, the Younger
abstention doctrine, and the probate exception to this Court's
jurisdiction.
In addition, Plaintiff failed to establish that
this Court had personal jurisdiction over Defendants.
Thus, the
Court concludes Plaintiff's appeal is frivolous and Plaintiff's
in forma pauperis status should not continue for his appeal.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court concludes Plaintiff's appeal is
frivolous, and, therefore, Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status
3 - ORDER
should not continue for his appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ii--
DATED this_!/_ day of October, 2017.
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?