1 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TERRENCE MOORE, 

Plaintiff, No. 15-cv-12430 

Assigned to: 

vs. Hon. Thomas L. Ludington 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Defendant. 

___________________________________/ 

 ORDER DENYING PERMISSION TO FILE NEW ' 1983 

 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 

 At a session of said Court, held in 

the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan 

on October 6, 2015 

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen 

United States District Chief Judge 

After Plaintiff=s numerous meritless duplicative filings, including the filing of two 

unsuccessful Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motions for relief from the judgment of dismissal entered 

by the court four years earlier, and after the Sixth Circuit had determined that the issues 

raised by Plaintiff were frivolous, and twice dismissed Plaintiff=s appeals and refused 

reconsideration of the matter, on March 23, 2015, the Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow 

entered an Order enjoining Plaintiff from Afiling any new actions in the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan without first applying for and 

obtaining an order from the Chief Judge authorizing the filing of such lawsuit.@ [See 

1:15-cv-12430-TLL-DRG Doc # 6 Filed 10/06/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 107
2 

Terrence Moore v. George Hartley, et al.,No. 09-13536 [Dkt. # 107]. 

Plaintiff now is before this Court seeking such authorization for the filing of this 

new Section 1983 Civil Rights Complaint for Declaratory Relief. 

Leave to file a new complaint will not be granted to a litigant who has been 

enjoined from filing new actions Aunless [the litigant] can show (i) that the issues he seeks 

to present have not yet been addressed in the Court=s prior rulings, and (ii) that his filing 

is made in good faith and the issues he raises are neither frivolous nor abusive of the 

judicial process.@ See Hawkins v. United States, 2005 WL 2237785 at *1(E.D. Mich. 

May 12, 2015) (citation omitted). The Supreme Court has defined a Afrivolous@ action as 

one that Alacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.@ Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 

319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). Plaintiff Moore has not made the required showing. 

At the heart of Plaintiff=s proposed complaint is his allegation that Athe Michigan 

state courts [] are inconsistent in their application of People v. Cress, 664 N.W.2d 174 

(2003) to ... Michigan Court Rule 6.502(6)(2)[=s] new evidence exception.@ He wants 

this Court to declare the Michigan state courts= procedural rulings erroneous and order, on 

that basis, that he be allowed to proceed with this ' 1983 action to challenge, as a 

violation of his Fourteenth Amendment Right to Due Process, the Michigan courts=

decisions denying him post-trial relief from his 2005 state court convictions for first 

degree premeditated murder, felon in possession of a firearm, larceny in a building and 

1:15-cv-12430-TLL-DRG Doc # 6 Filed 10/06/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 108
3 

possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.1

The federal district courts do not sit as appellate courts over state court decisions. 

AThe jurisdiction possessed by the District Courts is strictly original.@ Rooker v. Fidelity 

Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). With the exception of their power to issue writs of 

habeas corpus, they are without power to review decisions rendered by state courts. See 

Exxon Mobil v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283 (2005) (A[A]ppellate 

jurisdiction to reverse or modify a state-court judgment is lodged ... exclusively in [the 

Supreme] Court.@). Federal jurisdiction over appeals from state courts is vested 

exclusively in the United States Supreme Court by 28 U.S.C. ' 1257. In other words, 

Afederal district courts lack jurisdiction over suits that are, in substance, appeals from state 

court judgments.@ Hoblock v. Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 83B84 (2d 

Cir.2005); see also Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Adkins, 400 F.3d 293 (6th Cir.2005) 

(explaining that federal district courts lack jurisdiction over challenges to state court 

decisions). Claims that challenge the propriety of decisions made by state court judges go 

beyond the scope of a federal district court=s jurisdiction. See Helfrich v. Marcelain, 

2009 WL 2243800 (S.D. Ohio July 23, 2009). 

 1

 See People of the State of Michigan v. Terrence Terrell Moore, Oakland County 

Circuit Court No. 05-202583, 10/7/13 Opinion and Order Regarding Defendant=s 

Successive Motion for Relief from Judgment [Plaintiff=s Ex. B], app. dismissed, People v. 

Moore, No. 318658 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2014), lv. denied, People v. Moore, 497 

Mich. 867, 853 N.W.2d 847 (2014), and recons. denied, 497 Mich. 956, 858 N.W.2d 38 

(2015). 

The foregoing makes clear that this Court is without jurisdiction to declare the 

1:15-cv-12430-TLL-DRG Doc # 6 Filed 10/06/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 109
4 

alleged Ainconsistent@ rulings of the Michigan state courts erroneous. Consequently, this 

Court finds that as there is no basis in law for Plaintiff Moore=s proposed new complaint. 

The complaint is frivolous, and not in good faith. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s request for permission to file his new 

complaint is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that leave to appeal this decision in forma pauperis 

will be denied as any appeal from this decision would not be taken in good faith. See 

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445B46, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962). 

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court 

Dated: October 6, 2015 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or 

counsel of record on October 6, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5135 

1:15-cv-12430-TLL-DRG Doc # 6 Filed 10/06/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 110