Miyabara v. Federal National Mortgage Association
Filing
9
ORDER: The Court has before it a pro se "Emergency Motion/Petition/Complaint" (Docket Entry No.1) and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No.7). In the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff's Motion 1 is DENIED and the instant action is hereby DISMISSED. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 8/14/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(af)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
S. KEITH MIYABARA
Plaintiff,
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION
Defendant.
No.3:12-cv-0831
(No. 3:12-mc-0049)
Judge Campbell
O R D E R
The Court has before it a pro se “Emergency Motion/Petition/
Complaint” (Docket Entry No.1) and an application to proceed in
forma pauperis (Docket Entry No.7).
The plaintiff is a resident of Thompson Station, Tennessee. It
appears from the application that he lacks sufficient financial
resources
from
which
to
pay
for
the
filing
of
his
Motion.
Therefore, the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
is GRANTED.
According to the Motion, a judicial proceeding was held in
Williamson County.1 Following this proceeding, the plaintiff’s home
1
The plaintiff has not specifically identified which
judicial proceeding led to his claims. However, he makes mention
of “Judge Tim Easter” and the Williamson County Courthouse. See
Docket Entry No.2 at pg.17. The Honorable Timothy Easter is a
Circuit Court Judge in Williamson County.
1
was foreclosed upon, the plaintiff and his family were evicted from
the premises, and the property was sold at a trustees’ sale. The
plaintiff alleges that the defendant used the judicial proceeding
as a means to “steal a home through a legal means and re-sell it.”
Docket Entry No.1 at pg.4.
In a series of Supreme Court cases, it was held that a federal
district court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to a
state court decision arising out of a judicial proceeding, even if
the
challenge
alleges
that
the
state
court
action
was
unconstitutional. These holdings are more commonly known as the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. This doctrine bars a losing party in state
court “from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of
the state judgment in a United States district court, based on the
losing party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates the
loser’s federal rights.” Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 100506 (1994).
In this case, the plaintiff claims that the state court should
not have allowed the defendant to foreclose upon his residence and
force his family’s eviction in such a way as to violate their
constitutional rights. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that
this Court has no appellate jurisdiction to review and possibly
correct
the
state
court
judgment
that
lies
at
the
heart
of
plaintiff’s complaint. The Court, therefore, lacks the jurisdiction
needed to adjudicate the plaintiff’s claims.
2
In the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s
Motion is DENIED and the instant action is hereby DISMISSED.
It is so ORDERED.
____________________________
Todd Campbell
United States District Judge
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?