Pierson et al v. Andrews, No. 4:2016cv00346 - Document 9 (N.D. Okla. 2016)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan ; granting 7 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; denying 8 Motion to Reconsider (Re: 6 Judgment,, Dismissing/Terminating Case,,, 5 Opinion and Order,,,,,, Ruling on Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis,,, Ruling on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,, ) (RGG, Chambers)

Download PDF
Pierson et al v. Andrews Doc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA KENNETH P. PIERSON and PAULA L. TAYLOR, Plaintiffs, v. DON ANDREWS, individually and in his official capacity as State District Judge, Oklahoma County, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 16-CV-0346-CVE-PJC OPINION AND ORDER Now before the Court is plaintiff Kenneth Pierson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. # 7) and plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and brief in support (Dkt. # 8). Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider its order (Dkt. # 5) dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. # 8. Plaintiffs’ motion renews their arguments attacking orders of an Oklahoma state court. Id. As the Court stated in its previous order, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear a suit directly challenging a state court judgment. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 532 (2011) (“[A] state-court decision is not reviewable by lower federal courts . . . .”); see also Dkt. # 5, at 2-3. The Court previously concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs’ claims, and plaintiffs have provided no new argument or authority in their motion that requires the Court to depart from its previous conclusion. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration should thus be denied. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and brief in support (Dkt. # 8) is denied. Dockets.Justia.com IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Kenneth Pierson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. # 7) is granted and he does not owe the filing fee. DATED this 28th day of June, 2016. 2

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.