Harpster v. State of Ohio, No. 1:2010cv02183 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2010)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted. (ECF 2 ). This action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 11/18/10. (LC,S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Harpster v. State of Ohio Doc. 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION LARRY HARPSTER Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OHIO Defendant. ) CASE NO. 1:10CV2183 ) ) ) JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION ) AND ORDER ) Plaintiff pro se Larry Harpster filed this action in forma pauperis against the State of Ohio without indicating the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction. He is challenging his conviction for criminal trespass in violation of R.C. 2911.21 obtained in the City of Ashland, Ohio Municipal Court. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that he was not given his rights required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), he was deprived of an attorney during interrogation, and his case was heard by a judge instead of a desired jury. Plaintiff requests the following relief: “I am now asking for cruel and unusual punishment, and I am leaving that up to the Court to decide on the cap...I now ask this Court to review this case.” Compl. pg. 5. Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the district court is required to dismiss an action under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). For the reasons stated below, this action is dismissed pursuant to section 1915(e). Plaintiff refers to leaving the” cap” up to the Court, which apparently means he is asking for Dockets.Justia.com damages. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a citizen of a state from suing that state, or one of its agencies, in federal court unless the state consents to such suit or there is an express statutory waiver of immunity. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1(1890); Jacobs v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2009 WL 3126285 * 3 (S.D. Ohio, Sep.23, 2009) (citing Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98-99 (1984)). The State of Ohio has not consented to suit in federal court. Jacobs, 2009 WL 3126285 at * 3. Plaintiff is complaining about an unfavorable state court decision. United States District Courts do not have jurisdiction over challenges to state court decisions even if those challenges allege that the state court’s action was unconstitutional. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483 n. 16 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). Federal appellate review of state court judgments can only occur in the United States Supreme Court, by appeal or by writ of certiorari. Id. Under this principle, generally referred to as the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, a party losing his case in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States District Court based on the party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates his or her federal rights. Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994). Federal jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely by couching the claims in terms of a civil rights action. Lavrack v. City of Oak Park, 1999 WL 801562 * 2 (6th Cir. Sept. 28, 1999); see also, Valenti v. Mitchell, 962 F.2d 288, 296 (3d Cir.1992). The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has applied two elements to a RookerFeldman analysis. First, in order for the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to apply to a claim presented in federal district court, the issue before the court must be inextricably intertwined with the claim asserted in the state court proceeding. Catz v. Chalker, 142 F.3d 279, 293 (6th Cir. 1998); see Tropf -2- v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., 289 F.3d 929, 937 (6th Cir. 2002). “Where federal relief can only be predicated upon a conviction that the state court was wrong, it is difficult to conceive the federal proceeding as, in substance, anything other than a prohibited appeal of the state court judgment.” Catz, 142 F.3d at 293. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies when the party losing his case in state court files suit in federal district court seeking redress for an injury allegedly caused by the state court's decision itself. Coles v. Granville, 448 F.3d 853, 857-59 (6th Cir. 2006). Second, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes a district court’s jurisdiction where the claim is a specific grievance that the law was invalidly or unconstitutionally applied in plaintiff’s particular case as opposed to a general constitutional challenge to the state law applied in the state action. Id.; Tropf, 289 F.3d at 937. Since a federal court has no jurisdiction over challenges to state court decisions, it follows that a plaintiff in a federal court case cannot recover damages from a defendant allegedly involved in the state court decision. Nor can a federal court review a case that occurred in a state or municipal court Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted. (ECF 2). This action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 11/18/10 /s/ Patricia A. Gaughan JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -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.
