Vecchio et al v. Rowlands et al, No. 5:2011cv01988 - Document 4 (N.D. Ohio 2011)

Court Description: <Memorandum Opinion and Order that this action is dismissed under section 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. A copy was mailed to plaintiffs on 9/27/2011. Signed by Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. on 9/26/2011. (M,De)

Download PDF
Vecchio et al v. Rowlands et al Doc. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JOHN G. VECCHIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JUDGE ROWLANDS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:11 CV 1988 JUDGE DAVID D. DOWD, JR. MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On September 21, 2011, Plaintiffspro se John G. Vecchio, Elizabeth V ecchio, and the Andro Childrens Trust f iled this in forma pauperis action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Summit County Court of Com mon Pleas Judge Rowlands and Ohi Attorney General Mike DeWine. o The action arises out of a foreclosure action ag ainst Pl aintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs allege a judgment in foreclosure was granted to Credit Based Asset Servicing and Securitization by Judge Rowlands on September 14, 2010. They further allege the judgment should not have been entered : because all parties in interest were not served, legal requirements to obtain foreclosure were not the followed, and Judge Rowlands did not properly adhere to rules governing Ohio courts. Plaintiffs have also filed a Motion to Stay Eviction, which indicates eviction is scheduled for September 29, 2011. 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 Dockets.Justia.com (5:11 CV 1988) granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. 1 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). This Court cannot vacate the Sum County Common Pleas Court Judgm nor enjoin the mit ent, execution of the judgment. United States District Courts do not have jurisdiction over challenges to state court decisions even if those challenges allege t hat 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). Federaappellate review of state l court judgm ents c an onl y occur in the United St ates Suprem e Court, by appeal or by writ of certiorari. Id. Under this principle, generally referred to as the Rooker-Feldm Doctrine, a party an losing a state court case 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 her federal rights. Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994) . Federal jurisdiction cannot be invoked m erely by couching the claim s in term s of a civil rights action. Lavrack v. City of Oak Park, No. 98-1142, 1999 WL 801562, at *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 28, 1999); see Valenti v. Mitchell, 962 F.2d 288, 296 (3d Cir.1992). A 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). 1 2 (5:11 CV 1988) The United States Sixth Circ uit Court of Appeals has applied two elem ents to a RookerFeldman analysis. First, in order for the Rooker-Feldm doctrine to apply to a claim presented in an 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); Tropf see 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 ot her than a prohibited appeal of the stat e court judgment.” Catz, 142 F.3d at 293. The Rooker-Feldm doctrine applies when the party losing her an case in state court files suit in federal district court seeking redress for an injury allegedly caused by the state court&#039; s decision it self. 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 challengeto the state law applied in the state action.Id. In the present action, Plain tiffs essentially question the State court’s decision granting foreclosure. Any review of federal claim asserted in this context would re s quire the Court to review the specific issues addressed in the State cour t proceedings. This Court lacks subj ect m atter 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. 3 (5:11 CV 1988) Accordingly, this action is dism issed under section 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. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties at their address of record. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/David D. Dowd, Jr. DAVID D. DOWD, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.