McNutt v. Sanders, No. 5:2011cv00107 - Document 5 (W.D. Ky. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Chief Judge Thomas B. Russell on 8/2/2011: an appropriate order shall issuecc:counsel (KJA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11CV-107-R JESSE R. McNUTT PLAINTIFF v. STEPHEN COOK SANDERS DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Jesse R. McNutt initiated this action by filing a pro se petition for removal seeking to remove his appeal before the Kentucky Court of Appeals. A federal court generally may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining that it has jurisdiction over the category of claim in suit (subject-matter jurisdiction). Sinochem Int l Co. v. Malaysia Int l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-31 (2007). The Court must dismiss an action if it determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The dismissal should issue the moment the Court determines that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss this action for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). I. In the petition for removal, Plaintiff seeks removal of case No. :2010-CA-000497 from the state of Kentucky. He states that the Court has jurisdiction over the matter according to 28 U.S.C. ยงยง 1441(a), 1446(b), 1331, 1332 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Plaintiff states that Defendant Stephen Cook Sanders is a citizen of the state of Florida. He further states: The case should be removed from the Kentucky courts in the interest of justice, grounds are the Kentucky Court of Appeals (coa) ruled on an interlocutory appealed issue that was pending before the Kentucky Supreme Court (sc) . . . The coa entered an order on 4/19/11 before the sc dismissed movents motion to reconsider on May 12, 2011, how preposterous! Is the coa clairvoyant? Plaintiff states that the relief sought is to remove the case due to diversity of citizenship of Stephen Cook Sanders also federal question continues to exist. II. It is axiomatic that federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and their powers are enumerated in Article III of the Constitution. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Hudson v. Coleman, 347 F.3d 138, 141 (6th Cir. 2003) ( [I]t is well established that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by the Constitution and statute. ). Jurisdiction defines the contours of the authority of courts to hear and decide cases, and, in so doing, it dictates the scope of the judiciary s influence. Douglas v. E.G. Baldwin & Assoc. Inc., 150 F.3d 604, 606 (6th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by Cobb v. Contract Transp., Inc., 452 F.3d 543, 548-49 (6th Cir. 2006). Moreover, federal courts have an independent duty to determine whether they have jurisdiction and to police the boundaries of their own jurisdiction. Douglas, 150 F.3d at 607 (citing Ebrahimi v. City of Huntsville Bd. of Educ., 114 F.3d 162, 165 (11th Cir. 1997)). The party who seeks to invoke a federal district court s jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the court s authority to hear the case. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden as this case is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Under this doctrine, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review a case litigated and decided in state court. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 & n.16 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). The doctrine prevents both a direct attack on the substance of a state court decision and a challenge to the procedures 2 used by the state court in arriving at its decision. Anderson v. Charter Twp. of Ypsilanti, 266 F.3d 487, 493 (6th Cir. 2001). A party raising a federal question must appeal a state court decision through the state system and then directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Owens, 54 F.3d 271, 274 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Feldman, 460 U.S. at 476; Rooker, 263 U.S. at 415). Only the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction to correct state court judgments. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482. In this case, Plaintiff is attempting to remove his appeal of a state court judgment to this Court. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is, therefore, directly applicable. [S]tate-court losers cannot file suit in federal district courts challenging state court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced. Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 460 (2006) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)). Thus, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents this Court from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff s claim. This action therefore must be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The Court will enter an Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. Date: August 2, 2011 cc: Plaintiff, pro se 4413.010 3
]]>
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.
