UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

MICHAEL ANTHONY MAXIE,

Plaintiff, 

 Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-848-JVB

v.

TONI SCHNEIEER et al., 

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

Michael Anthony Maxie, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit on a Prisoner

Complaint form pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, but this is not a prison lawsuit. Rather, this claim

arises out of a workplace injury that occurred in 2010. Maxie fractured his finger while working

at Axis Products. He filed a worker’s compensation claim and was provided some medical

treatment, but he believes that his care was cut short by the insurance carrier. Thereafter, he was

fired by Axis Products. He litigated his claims with the Worker’s Compensation Board, but that

case was dismissed and closed in 2012. Not satisfied with the result, Maxie sued in state court.

That case was also dismissed. In an attempt to challenge that ruling, he filed a notice of appeal,

but it was untimely. Though Maxie is not suing the state court judge in this proceeding, he

alleges that the dismissal of that case was improper. In this proceeding, Maxie is suing the

insurance company, the insurance adjuster, an employee of Axis Products, and perhaps a John

Doe medical doctor.1

1

 Maxie states on the complaint form that he is suing three defendants and he has written the numbers 1, 2, and

3. However, next to number 3 he has written John Doe and directly beneath it he wrote Bradley White. On the same line

as those two names, he wrote Axis Products, Inc. Bradley White is not named in the body of the complaint. John Doe

is mentioned, but he is a treating physician. It is unclear what Maxie intended, but since this case is meritless no matter

whether John Doe is Bradley White or a doctor, it is unnecessary to resolve this question.
“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however

inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by

lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner

complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

relief. This case is malicious.

Maxie is asking the Court to overturn the results of his state case. However, the review of

state-court judgments and related claims has been strictly limited by the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine. See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co.,

263 U.S. 413 (1923).

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts lack subject-matter

jurisdiction when, after state proceedings have ended, a losing party in state court

files suit in federal court complaining of an injury caused by the state-court

judgment and seeking review and rejection of that judgment. In determining

whether a federal plaintiff seeks review of a state-court judgment, we ask whether

the injury alleged resulted from the state-court judgment itself. If it does,

Rooker-Feldman bars the claim.

Beth-El All Nations Church v. City of Chicago, 486 F.3d 286, 292 (7th Cir. 2007) (citations

omitted). Simply put, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “precludes lower federal court jurisdiction

over claims seeking review of state court judgments or over claims ‘inextricably intertwined’

with state court judgments.” Remer v. Burlington Area Sch. Dist., 205 F.3d 990, 996 (7th Cir.

2000) (citing Long v. Shorebank Dev. Corp., 182 F.3d 548, 554 (7th Cir. 1999)). “[O]nly the

Supreme Court of the United States may set aside a state court’s decision in civil litigation.”

2
Simmons v. Gillespie, 712 F.3d 1041, 1043 (7th Cir. 2013). Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction to

overturn his state-court judgment, reconsider his case, and declare him the winner. 

Maxie has litigated his claims before the Worker’s Compensation Board and in state

court. Having lost twice before, he now seeks to drag the insurance company and his former

employer back into Court again. This is not the first time that Maxie has refused to stop

harassing a victorious Defendant. In Maxie v. Wal-Mart, 3:09-CV-260 (N.D. Ind. filed June 12,

2009), the Court dismissed his case because it did not state a claim over which the Court had

jurisdiction. Dissatisfied, Maxie sued Wal-Mart again on the same allegations. Maxie v. WalMart, 1:09-CV-286 (N.D. Ind. filed Oct. 21, 2009), and had his case dismissed again, for the

same reasons. Moreover, he was cautioned “that if he continues to file this Complaint in this

District, the fees and costs associated with his filing may be assessed against him.” Id. at DE 3.

Undeterred, Maxie brought the same claims against the same defendant for a third time. In Maxie

v. Wal-Mart, 3:10-CV-515 (N.D. Ind. filed December 10, 2010), the Court dismissed the case,

assessed the $350 filing fee as a fine, and restricted Maxie from filing any further civil cases

(except for habeas corpus proceedings). On May 20, 2013, the Court granted Maxie’s request to

lift the restriction, but cautioned “that lifting the restriction is not an invitation for him to again

file meritless lawsuits.” Id. at DE 22. 

That is the first thing that he has done. Moreover, like his Wal-Mart cases, Maxie is

attempting to harass Defendants who have already prevailed in prior proceedings and where this

Court lacks jurisdiction to hear his case. When the restriction was lifted, he was specifically

cautioned that if he re-filed the claims against Wal-Mart that resulted in his restriction, he would

be immediately fined and restricted again without further notice. That is not exactly what he has

3
done here, so he will not be fined or restricted at this time. Nevertheless, Maxie is cautioned that

filing meritless, frivolous, and/or malicious lawsuits will subject him to being fined, sanctioned,

or restricted.

For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

because it is malicious. 

SO ORDERED on September 4, 2013.

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4