Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00855/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00855-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eugene E. Stewart, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 05-855-PHX RCB

)

Vs. ) O R D E R

)

The Red Roof Inns, Inc., )

et al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

On March 31, 2005, Plaintiff Eugene E. Stewart, filed a Notice

of Removal of this matter from the Superior Court of Arizona in

Maricopa County ("Superior Court"). (doc. 1). On April 4, 2005,

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this case and an objection to

Plaintiff's Notice of Removal. (docs. 6, 7). Defendants assert in

their motion to dismiss that (1) this case has already been

dismissed with prejudice by the Superior Court; and (2) that such

dismissal is res judicata to the filing of this case. Motion (doc.

6) at 1. Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendants' Motion to

Dismiss. 

. . .

Case 2:05-cv-00855-RCB Document 9 Filed 12/07/05 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

I. Background Facts

Plaintiff previously filed a Complaint in the Superior Court

of Arizona in Maricopa County. Such Complaint was identical in

substance to the allegations in this lawsuit. During the course of

litigation in the Superior Court lawsuit, Uniform Interrogatories

were propounded on the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's deposition was

noticed. Plaintiff refused to provide answers to interrogatories,

discovery responses, or appear at a deposition. As a result,

Defendants filed a motion to compel, and the Honorable Peter

Reinstein signed an order compelling Plaintiff to provide discovery

responses and participate in a deposition. After Plaintiff failed

to follow the court's order, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss,

and Judge Reinstein entered an order dismissing Plaintiff's

Complaint with prejudice. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion for

reconsideration, which was subsequently denied by the Honorable

Pendleton Gaines. Plaintiff then filed a notice of removal and a

complaint in this Court. Notice of Removal (doc. 1); Amend. Complt.

(doc. 2).

II. Jurisdiction of this Court

Due to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this Court does not have

jurisdiction to entertain this case. This doctrine generally

prevents review of state court judgments by inferior federal

tribunals. D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). 

In Feldman, the plaintiff sought to challenge in federal district

court a decision rendered in the District of Columbia Court of

Appeals. Id. at 468. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals

refused to grant the plaintiff a waiver of a certain bar admission

rule. Id. The plaintiff, in his federal district court action,

Case 2:05-cv-00855-RCB Document 9 Filed 12/07/05 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

sought to challenge (1) the constitutionality of the bar admissions

rule itself, and (2) the court's decision denying waiver. Id. at

468-69. The Court held that the plaintiff could challenge the

constitutionality of the state court rule in federal court;

however, he could not challenge the state court's decision as being

unconstitutional based on that rule. Id. at 486; accord Rooker v.

Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). Thus, under the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine, review of state court decisions may only

be conducted in the United States Supreme Court. See also,

Partington v. Gedan, 961 F.2d 852, 864 (9th Cir. 1992). "Lower

federal courts may not review such decisions." Id.

In the present case, Plaintiff initially pursued relief on his

claims in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County. The

Superior Court made a ruling on Plaintiff's case and dismissed the

matter with prejudice. Now, Plaintiff attempts to bring before this

Court the very same issues considered and denied by the Superior

Court. Plaintiff challenges the Superior Court's decision and seeks

a review of such ruling. Amend. Complt. (doc. 2) at 2.

Consequently, the Court holds that Plaintiff's case is barred by

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine since any ruling made by this Court

would be "inextricably intertwined" with the results of the

Superior Court proceeding. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486. Such a finding

would purport to invalidate the Superior Court's ruling in this

case, and this Court has no jurisdiction to take such action.

Finding a lack of jurisdiction to consider this case, the Court

need not further analyze whether Plaintiff's claims are also barred

by the doctrine of res judicata.

Therefore,

Case 2:05-cv-00855-RCB Document 9 Filed 12/07/05 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 6) is

GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk is directed to enter

judgment and terminate this action.

DATED this 6th day of December, 2005.

Copies to counsel of record and Plaintiff, pro se

Case 2:05-cv-00855-RCB Document 9 Filed 12/07/05 Page 4 of 4