Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-2570-GTV
April 29, 2003.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Ali Sherkat, proceeding pro se, brings this action against Defendants James F. Vano, District Judge, Johnson County District Court, and Sandy McCurdy, Clerk of the District Court, Johnson County, Kansas. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights of due process and equal protection during proceedings in a Johnson County District Court Protection from Abuse case. This is the third such action that Plaintiff has filed in this court. The two previous actions, 02-2399-JAR and 02-2487-KHV, which were filed against the Johnson County District Court rather than Defendants Vano and McCurdy, were dismissed by Judges Robinson and Vratil for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Defendants have moved to dismiss (Doc. 6) the instant action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and have asked the court to restrict Plaintiff from filing any further cases regarding Johnson County District Court case number 02-CV-4535. For the following reasons, the court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 6). The court declines to impose future filing restrictions on Plaintiff.
In Plaintiff's "Statement of Claim" attached to his complaint, Plaintiff makes several allegations, including the following: Plaintiff, Ali Sherkat, was found guilty of abuse, at the Johnson County District Court by Judge James F. Vano in the absence of any evidence and simply based on testimony of the accuser. The Court did not extend to plaintiff the same due process and equal protection extended to other people or cases depriving people of their liberty and property. The Court accomplished this violation by not recording the verbal goings on of the hearing/trial that found plaintiff guilty. . . . Furthermore, the plaintiff's parenting rights including visitation with his children ha[ve] been taken away. . . . In fact the Clerk of the Court, Sandy McCurdy, intended to obstruct justice, and delay plaintiff[']s legal options by lying about the [s]tatutes and procedures of the State of Kansas and Johnson County District Court. . . . In particular the Johnson County District Court and defendant [are] denying equal protection to, the plaintiff in particular, and all persons involved in Protection from Abuse cases, in general, by not recording the verbal goings on of these types of cases. In this fashion the defendant is using unreasonable and arbitrary procedure to determine due process for plaintiff's case in particular, and the classification of Protection from Abuse cases in general. . . .
Plaintiff requests that the court order the following relief: (1) find Defendants "guilty" of violating Plaintiff's constitutional rights and ignoring state statutes and rules; (2) find Defendant McCurdy "guilty" of providing false information and attempting to obstruct justice; (3) dismiss the judgment and orders of the Johnson County District Court and restore Plaintiff's parenting rights; (4) reverse and correct the consequences of the Johnson County District Court rulings; and (5) award Plaintiff $5,000,000 in monetary damages. As Judges Robinson and Vratil have previously held, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff is essentially asking the court to review a state court Protection from Abuse proceeding. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review decisions of a state court or any claim "inextricably intertwined" with claims decided by a state court. Mounkes v. Conklin, 922 F. Supp. 1501, 1508-10 (D.Kan. 1996) (explaining the doctrine, which stems from the holdings in District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983) and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923)). Only the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review such decisions. 28 U.S.C. § 1257; Facio v. Jones, 929 F.2d 541, 543 (10th Cir. 1991). The law does not allow Plaintiff to ignore state court procedures and remedies and collaterally attack state court rulings by filing a case in federal district court.
After reviewing Plaintiff's claims, the court concludes that they are "inextricably intertwined" with the state court Protection from Abuse proceeding. The court cannot find Defendants "guilty" or liable for damages for their involvement in the state court Protection from Abuse proceeding without reviewing the proceeding itself, which is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
The court notes that even in the absence of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Plaintiff's complaint would be subject to dismissal based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, Russ v. Uppah, 972 F.2d 300, 303 (10th Cir. 1992), judicial immunity (with respect to Defendant Vano), Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1434-35 (10th Cir. 1986), the doctrine of abstention, Oltremari by McDaniel v. Kan. Soc. Rehab. Serv., 871 F. Supp. 1331, 1356-58 (D.Kan. 1994) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) and its progeny), and likely the doctrine of res judicata, Hoxworth v. Blinger, 74 F.3d 205, 208 (10th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff simply has no cause of action in this court.
Defendants have asked the court to enter a filing restriction against Plaintiff based on the three cases he has filed arising out of the same Johnson County District Court action. "A district court has the power under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to enjoin litigants who abuse the court system by harassing their opponents." Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989). Injunctions restricting filings may be appropriate where: (1) the litigant has a lengthy and abusive filing history; (2) the court provides tailored guidelines indicating how the litigant may obtain permission to file an action; and (3) the litigant receives notice and opportunity to oppose the court's order before implementation. Id. at 353-54.
The court determines that a filing restriction is not yet warranted in this case. The court is not convinced that Plaintiff's filings are abusive or harassing. The instant case represents the first time Plaintiff has named Defendants Vano and McCurdy as parties. The court therefore denies Defendants' request for sanctions in the form of a filing restriction, but Plaintiff is admonished that future frivolous filings regarding the same Johnson County District Court action may result in sanctions of some form.
Also before the court is a motion for default judgment filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 8). Notwithstanding the fact that Defendants properly responded to Plaintiff's complaint with a motion to dismiss, the court determines that it lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's motion. See Dennis Garberg Assocs., Inc. v. Pack-Tech Int'l Corp., 115 F.3d 767, 771-72 (10th Cir. 1997) (noting that the court must determine whether it has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties before entering default judgment). The motion for default judgment is therefore denied as moot. Defendants have asked the court to impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff for filing a frivolous motion, but the court declines to do so.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is granted. Defendants' request for filing restrictions is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Doc. 8) is denied as moot.
The case is closed.
Copies or notice of this order shall be transmitted to pro se Plaintiff and counsel of record.