Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-04221/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-04221-0/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

Rodney J. FILLMORE, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Hon. Janis Ann STERLING, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-4221-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, filed on January 11, 2006

[Doc. No. 3]. Plaintiff responded on February 1, 2006 [Doc. No. 10], and Defendant filed

a Reply on February 10, 2006 [Doc. No. 11]. After considering the parties' briefs, the Court

now issues the following ruling.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

Judge Janis Ann Sterling, a Judge in Yavapai County Superior Court, on December 23, 2005.

[Doc. No. 1] Plaintiff alleges that he appealed a decision by Judge Markham of the Prescott

Justice Court to Yavapai County Superior Court Presiding Judge Sterling ("Defendant"), and

that Defendant did not make findings of fact or conclusions of law as Rule 12(b) of the

Arizona Superior Court Rules of Appellate Procedure gives Defendant authority to make.

Plaintiff filed a Petition for Special Action with the Arizona Court of Appeals, requesting

that the Court of Appeals order Defendant to apply Rule 12(b)'s standard of review, but the

Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction. Plaintiff then filed with the Arizona Supreme Court

Case 3:05-cv-04221-SMM Document 12 Filed 02/23/06 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 -

a Petition for Review of a Special Action Decision of the Court of Appeals, and the Arizona

Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's Petition. 

Plaintiff then filed the case at bar, claiming that Defendant denied Plaintiff due

process guaranteed him under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States

Constitution by failing to make findings of fact or conclusions of law. On January 11, 2006,

Defendant moved to dismiss the cause of action for lack of jurisdiction. As stated above, the

Motion is now fully briefed and ripe for disposition by this Court.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a defendant to bring a

motion to dismiss asserting a "lack of subject matter jurisdiction." FED.R.CIV. P. 12(b)(1).

When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff has the

burden of proving jurisdiction in order to survive the defendant's motion to dismiss. Tosco

v. Communities for a Better Env't, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001); Stock West, Inc. v.

Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). "[A] plaintiff suing in federal

court must show in his pleading, affirmatively and distinctly, the existence of whatever is

essential to federal jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court, on having the defect

called to its attention or on discovering the same, must dismiss the case, unless the defect can

be corrected by amendment." Smith v. McCullough, 270 U.S. 456, 459 (1926) (internal

punctuation omitted). A case is properly dismissed when the court lacks the statutory

authority or constitutional power to adjudicate the case. See, e.g., Tosco, 236 F.3d at 499.

DISCUSSION

In her Motion, Defendant proffers three grounds for dismissal of the Complaint: the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies, Defendant is immune from suit under the Eleventh

Amendment, and Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court will

first address the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Under what has become known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts

lack jurisdiction to review the judgments and decisions of state courts. District of Columbia

Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S.

Case 3:05-cv-04221-SMM Document 12 Filed 02/23/06 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 -

413 (1923). In Feldman, the Supreme Court stated that district courts do not have

jurisdiction "over challenges to state court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial

proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state court's action was unconstitutional."

460 U.S. at 486. Rather, the Court added, "[r]eview of those decisions may be had only in

[the Supreme] Court" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257. Id.

The Ninth Circuit has recently provided additional guidance in applying the RookerFeldman doctrine. In Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003), the Ninth Circuit

provided this formulation: "If a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly

erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that

decision, Rooker-Feldman bars subject matter jurisdiction in federal district court." In such

an instance, that federal plaintiff seeks a forbidden de facto appeal. See id. at 1163. In

Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 891 (9th Cir. 1986), the Ninth Circuit

emphasized that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine "applies even when the challenge to the state

court decision involves federal constitutional issues," such as challenges anchored to alleged

deprivations of federally protected due process and equal protection rights. 

In this case, Plaintiff contends that his due process rights were violated when

Defendant failed to apply Rule 12(b) of the Arizona Superior Court Rules of Appellate

Procedure. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief as his remedy, asking this Court to order

Defendant to review Plaintiff's case and decide contested issues of law and fact in accordance

with Rule 12(b) of the Arizona Superior Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. However, the

Court finds that Plaintiff's claim essentially "request[s] the district court to conduct a direct

review of the state court's judgment and to scrutinize the state court's application of various

rules and procedures pertaining to his case," which this Court cannot do under the RookerFeldman doctrine. Allah v. Superior Court, 871 F.2d 887, 891 (9th Cir. 1989). Despite

Plaintiff's characterizations to the contrary, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Complaint seeks

a reversal of the decisions of the Arizona courts because Plaintiff asks this Court to

"command" Defendant to re-conduct her appellate review of Defendant's Justice Court case.

This Court simply lacks the power to take such action. Only the United States Supreme

Case 3:05-cv-04221-SMM Document 12 Filed 02/23/06 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

1

Because the Court has determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this

matter, it need not address Defendant's other grounds for dismissal.

- 4 -

Court has jurisdiction to review the state courts' judgment. Accordingly, this Court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Complaint and this case must be dismissed.

Defendant's Motion will therefore be granted.1

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 3]

is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice, thereby

terminating this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 22nd day of February, 2006.

Case 3:05-cv-04221-SMM Document 12 Filed 02/23/06 Page 4 of 4