UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

CHANCE CATUDAL,

Plaintiff,

 Civil Action 2:12-cv-00197

v. Judge GREGORY L. FROST

 Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers

KIM A. BROWNE, et al.,

 

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action alleging that Defendants violated

his due process and equal protection rights during state-court divorce and child custody

proceedings. This matter is before the Court for consideration of the March 29, 2012 Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court

dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Ohio Common Pleas Court (Domestic Relations Division)

Magistrate William Sieloff, Ohio Common Pleas Court Judge (Domestic Relations Division)

Kim A. Browne, and Supreme Court of Ohio Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor (hereinafter the

“judicial Defendants”) for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. In the

alternative, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court abstain from exercising

jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine. Finally, the

Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of Defendants Christopher E. Heckert and Bryan

Bowen for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed his Objections to the dismissal of the judicial

Defendants on April 9, 2012.1

 For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 6) are

1

 Plaintiff does not object to dismissal of Defendants Heckert and Bowen.

Case: 2:12-cv-00197-GLF-EPD Doc #: 7 Filed: 04/24/12 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 5) is ADOPTED. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED.

If a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation, the Court

“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

To the extent Plaintiff objects to the standards the Magistrate Judge applied in reviewing

his Complaint, such objections are unavailing. Plaintiff brought this action in forma pauperis,

and, therefore, his Complaint was subject to an initial screen under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). In

conducting the initial screen, the Court considers whether Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous or fail

to state claims for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Frivolous, in this context, includes a review of

whether, from the face of the Complaint, the Court lacks jurisdiction. See Williams v. Cincy

Urban Apts., No. 1:10-cv-153, 2010 WL 883846, at *2 n.1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2010) (“Where

there is no basis for federal jurisdiction apparent on the face of the complaint, a court may

dismiss the action as frivolous . . . under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) . . . .”). Furthermore, the

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held that in performing an initial screen,

the Court should apply general pleading standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010). Finally, the Magistrate Judge

correctly noted that the Court construes pro se claims liberally. In applying such a standard, the

Court recognizes that pro se filers lack formal legal trailing and may tend to be less clear than

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00197-GLF-EPD Doc #: 7 Filed: 04/24/12 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
their lawyer counterparts.2

In this case, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that it lacks jurisdiction, pursuant

to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, with regard to Plaintiff’s claims against the judicial Defendants. 

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “prohibits district courts from conducting appellate review of

state court decisions.” Coleman v. Governor of Michigan, 413 F. App’x. 866, 870 (6th Cir.

2011); see also Danforth v. Celebrezze, 76 F. App’x. 615, 616 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[F]ederal courts

lack jurisdiction where the action is a mere pretense and the suit is actually concerned with

domestic relations issues.”). “The pertinent question in determining whether a federal district

court is precluded under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine from exercising subject-matter

jurisdiction over a claim is whether the source of the injury upon which plaintiff bases his federal

claim is the state court judgment.” In re Squire, 617 F.3d 461, 465 (6th Cir. 2010) (internal

quotations omitted). 

Within his Objections, Plaintiff maintains that his claims against the judicial Defendants

are not a mere pretense for challenging the underlying state court judgment. The Court

disagrees. As the Magistrate Judge recognized:

A fair reading of Plaintiff’s Complaint . . . reveals that he is actually challenging the

various rulings of the judicial Defendants, which ultimately resulted in the October

19, 2011 divorce decree denying him legal custody over his daughter. Tellingly, the

injunctive relief Plaintiff ultimately seeks is another divorce trial. In other terms, the

sources of Plaintiff's injuries are the rulings and divorce decree judgment of the state

court. Because Plaintiff's claims against the judicial Defendants seek the Court to

review the state court decisions in his divorce and child custody proceedings, the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction over

these claims.

(Report & Recommendation 5, ECF No. 5.) Furthermore, Plaintiff’s attempts to challenge the

2

 Plaintiff contends, incorrectly, that the Magistrate Judge used this standard as

justification for not taking his claims seriously.

3

Case: 2:12-cv-00197-GLF-EPD Doc #: 7 Filed: 04/24/12 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
judicial Defendants’ various state court rulings on constitutional grounds do not give the Court

jurisdiction. See In re Squire, 617 F.3d 461, 465 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the RookerFeldman doctrine still applies when “the party challenges the validity of the state court judgment

on constitutional grounds”) (internal quotations omitted).

For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s Objections are OVERRULED and the Report and

Recommendation is ADOPTED as to the Rooker-Feldman analysis.3 Plaintiff’s action is

DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to remove this action from the Court’ pending case

list.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Gregory L. Frost

GREGORY L. FROST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

 As an alternative basis for her recommendation of dismissal, the Magistrate Judge

found that Younger abstention would bar jurisdiction in this case even if the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine did not apply. (Report & Recommendation 5-6, ECF No. 5.) Because the Court finds

its jurisdiction precluded under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court finds it unnecessary to

address this alternative ground.

4

Case: 2:12-cv-00197-GLF-EPD Doc #: 7 Filed: 04/24/12 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>