Etemad v. Jones

Filing 9

Order Accepting 7 Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court overrules Plaintiff's objection and dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint. Pursuant to Rule 58(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court will enter judgment by separate document. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 6/12/2014) (axm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
BEJAN DAVID ETEMAD,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEPHEN JONES,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-668-L

ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff Bejan David Etemad’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se Complaint, filed
February 20, 2014.* This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney on the same day.
The magistrate judge entered Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on February 27, 2014, recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed an objection on March 10, 2014.
The magistrate judge explained that Plaintiff and his ex-wife were divorced in September
2011. In the divorce decree, Plaintiff’s ex-wife was awarded the residence at 5528 Layson Court.
Plaintiff challenged the final divorce decree; however, it was affirmed by a state court in September
2013. According to Plaintiff, his ex-wife transferred the property to Defendant. Plaintiff now
contends that Defendant conspired with his ex-wife to deprive him of his property.
The magistrate judge further explained that while Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated his
civil rights and RICO, he is actually challenging the divorce decree’s award of the residence to his
ex-wife. Plaintiff cannot obtain a review of state court action by filing a complaint about that action

*

Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.

Order - Page 1

in federal court in the form of a civil rights suit. See Hale v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688, 690-91 (5th Cir.
1986). Further, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction in cases brought by a party that loses in state court, such as Plaintiff, who complains of
injuries caused by the state court judgment. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544
U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Therefore, this court does not have jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Having reviewed the pleadings, file, and record in this case, and the findings and conclusions
of the magistrate judge, the court determines that the facts and conclusions are correct and accepts
them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court overrules Plaintiff’s objection and dismisses with
prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint. Pursuant to Rule 58(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
court will enter judgment by separate document.
It is so ordered this 12th day of June, 2014.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order - Page 2