Shafizadeh v. Bowles et al, No. 3:2010cv00345 - Document 16 (W.D. Ky. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 8/13/2010. For the reasons set forth, 4 Motion to Dismiss is SUSTAINED and all of Plaintiff's claims in the case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This is a final and appealable order. cc: Counsel (AEP)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-345-H SAEID SHAFIZADEH PLAINTIFF V. JUDGE JERRY J. BOWLES COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Saeid Shafizadeh, asked this Court for sweeping relief against Defendant, Jerry J. Bowles, a Jefferson Circuit Court judge who recently ruled on Plaintiff s divorce case. Defendant has moved for summary judgment on numerous well-founded grounds. Plaintiff s complaint for relief against a sitting judge is breathtaking indeed. The complaint asks the Court to disqualify Judge Bowles from presiding on future matters against Plaintiff; asked that various of his orders be unconstitutional; asked that certain actions of his staff be declared unconstitutional; asked that his motion practice be declared unconstitutional; and alleges various other unconstitutional actions seemingly arising directly from Plaintiff s experience in Judge Bowles court. There are a number of sound reasons why this case should be dismissed. The Court need only discuss two of them. Many if not all of Plaintiff s complaints stem from Judge Bowles handling of Plaintiff s divorce. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over claims seeking relief of cases litigated and decided in state court, as only the United States Supreme Court possesses jurisdiction to correct state court judgments. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). In no uncertain terms this is precisely what Plaintiff asks in this lawsuit. Because Plaintiff clearly makes an indirect attack on the state court s prior rulings, this Court has neither the reason nor power to take any of the other actions which Plaintiff requests. Plaintiff has also made the Commonwealth of Kentucky a party defendant. However, Plaintiff s state law claims against the Commonwealth are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Indeed, Plaintiff has all but admitted that his actual claims are against Judge Bowles and not against the Commonwealth. Absent any real allegations against the Commonwealth, it is entitled to dismissal as well. Being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants motion to dismiss is SUSTAINED and all of Plaintiff s claims in this case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This is a final and appealable order. August 13, 2010 cc: Counsel of Record
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
