Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00935/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00935-0/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

Michael J. Ottiano, Sr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Supreme Court of the State of Arizona,

Vice Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch

and Justices Michael D. Ryan and

Andrew D. Hurwitz; Court of Appeals of

the State of Arizona, Division One,

Presiding Judge Donn Kessler and

Judges Patricia A. Orozco and John C.

Gemmill; and Superior Court of

Maricopa County, Judge Peter C.

Reinstein, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-935-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Dkt. #3. A response and reply have been filed. Dkt. ##4, 5. The Court will

grant the motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

I. Background.

Plaintiff Michael Ottiano is proceeding pro se. Plaintiff is not, however, a novice

litigator. Since 1994, he has filed dozens of actions in state and federal court.

This federal action has its roots in a state court case filed by Plaintiff in 1994. See

Ottiano v. Credit Data Southwest, No. CV-1994-8370 (Ariz. Super. Ct. filed June 2, 1994).

Case 2:07-cv-00935-DGC Document 6 Filed 08/10/07 Page 1 of 3
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

1

Section 12-1612(A) provides that “[a] judgment for the payment of money which has

been entered and docketed in the civil docket . . . may be renewed by filing an affidavit for

renewal with the clerk of the proper court.”

- 2 -

On May 10, 2007, Plaintiff filed this claim for declaratory and injunctive relief. The

complaint asserts a violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection

based on decisions Defendants made in connection with a judgment renewal affidavit filed

in the state court case in 2002. Dkt. #1.

II. Analysis.

“Rooker-Feldman is a powerful doctrine that prevents federal courts from secondguessing state court decisions by barring the lower federal courts from hearing de facto

appeals from state-court judgments.” Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir.

2003); see Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman,

460 U.S. 462 (1983). “Essentially, the doctrine bars ‘state-court losers complaining of

injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings

commenced’ from asking district courts to review and reject those judgments.” Henrichs v.

Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 613 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi

Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants erred in finding that the judgment on mandate entered

in his state court case was a judgment for purposes of A.R.S. § 12-1612(A). Dkt. #1 at 2-4.1

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misread Scates v. Arizona Corporation

Commission, 601 P.2d 1357 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979), thereby violating the doctrine of stare

decisis, and misapplied Rule 54 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. Plaintiff

requests an order from this Court declaring the state court decision void and declaring that

Scates and Rule 54 are unconstitutional. Id. at 4. Plaintiff also seeks an injunction

prohibiting Defendants from applying stare decisis and Rule 54. Id.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Rooker-Feldman because his alleged injury resulted

from the state court decision itself and the requested relief would require this Court to review

the state court decision. Henrichs, 474 F.3d at 614 (holding that Rooker-Feldman barred the

Case 2:07-cv-00935-DGC Document 6 Filed 08/10/07 Page 2 of 3
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 -

plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief); see Bianchi, 334 F.3d at 898-99

(holding that Rooker-Feldman barred the plaintiff’s due process claim); Mothershed v.

Justices of the Supreme Ct., 410 F.3d 602, 606-07 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that RookerFeldman barred the plaintiff’s challenge to state disciplinary proceedings). The Court will

therefore grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Given this ruling, the Court need not address

Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity

and fail to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #3) is granted.

2. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

DATED this 9th day of August, 2007.

 

Case 2:07-cv-00935-DGC Document 6 Filed 08/10/07 Page 3 of 3