Hosseinipour v. Western Reserve Care System et al, No. 4:2008cv01719 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2008)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: This action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e). The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Sara Lioi on 8/8/2008. (P,J)

Download PDF

Hosseinipour v. Western Reserve Care System et al Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION AHMAD HOSSEINIPOUR, Plaintiff, v. WESTERN RESERVE CARE SYSTEM, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:08 CV 1719 JUDGE SARA LIOI MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On July 18, 2008, plaintiff pro se Ahmad Hosseinipour filed the above-captioned in forma pauperis action against Western Reserve Care System, MD Gene A. Butcher, Ohio State Medical Court, and Mahoning County Court. The one page document filed by Hosseinipour to initiate this action states that he would like to know why an action he filed in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas in 2000 was dismissed, and asks this court to Areview@ the 1 matter. 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 in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. '1915(e) if it fails to state a claim 1 Hosseinipour attaches a copy of the complaint from the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court case in question. 1 Dockets.Justia.com upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.2 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 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e). Rooker-Feldman Doctrine As a threshold matter, 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, No. 98-1142, 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 2 An in forma pauperis claim may be dismissed sua sponte, without prior notice to the plaintiff and without service of process on the defendant, if the court explicitly states that it is invoking section 1915(e) [formerly 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(d)] and is dismissing the claim for one of the reasons set forth in the statute. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1997); Spruytte v. Walters, 753 F.2d 498, 500 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1054 (1986); Harris v. Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986); Brooks v. Seiter, 779 F.2d 1177, 1179 (6th Cir. 1985). 2 Rooker-Feldman 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 v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., 289 F.3d 929, 937 (6th Cir. 2002). AWhere 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. 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. The present action directly attacks the state court=s decision dismissing Hosseinipour=s case. Any review of the federal claims asserted in this context would require the court to review the specific issues addressed in the state court proceedings. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to conduct such a review or grant the relief as requested. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483-84 n. 16; Catz, 142 F.3d at 293. Res Judicata Moreover, to the extent that the plaintiff seek to litigate anew matters which were previously decided by the state court, relief cannot be granted. A federal court must give a state court judgment the same preclusive effect it would have in the courts of the rendering state. 28 U.S.C. ' 1738; Dubuc v. Green Oak Township, 312 F.3d 736, 744 (6th Cir. 2002). The preclusive effect of the previous state court judgments are therefore governed by Ohio law on preclusion. Id. Under Ohio law, an existing final judgment or decree is conclusive as to all claims which were or 3 might have been litigated in the first lawsuit. National Amusement, Inc. v. Springdale, 53 Ohio St. 3d 60, 62 (1990). The doctrine of res judicata requires a plaintiff to present every ground for relief in the first action he files, or forever be barred from asserting it. Id. The purpose of this doctrine is to promote the finality of judgments and thereby increase certainty, discourage multiple litigation, and conserve judicial resources. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980). This court is bound to give full faith and credit to the decision of the state court. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, 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.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 8, 2008 HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a)(3) provides: An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not taken in good faith. 4

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.