UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KATHERINE STEEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAUSKI PATEL

Defendant.

/

Case No. 08-14319

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS, DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff Katherine Steen initiated this action on October 10, 2008 against

Defendant Hauski Patel. Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis,

which the court will grant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). However, after careful

consideration, the court must dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 

Complaints filed in forma pauperis are subject to the screening requirements of

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 (6th Cir. 2000). Section

1915(e)(2) requires district courts to screen and to dismiss complaints that are frivolous,

fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); McGore v.

Wigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). 

A complaint is frivolous and subject to sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e) if it

lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325

(1989). A plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, when,

construing the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and accepting all the
2

factual allegations as true, the plaintiff undoubtedly can prove no set of facts in support

of his claims that would entitle him to relief. Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194,

197 (6th Cir. 1996); Kline v. Rogers, 87 F.3d 176, 179 (6th Cir. 1996).

Also, “a district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated,

unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v.

Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528,

536–37 (1974)). 

While Plaintiff’s handwritten, pro se complaint is somewhat difficult to decipher, it

appears that Plaintiff seeks to appeal a case which has been litigated through the state

court system. In her first paragraph, Plaintiff indicates that she is “appealing and

complaining.” She refers to purported violations of “State Judge Crawford” and

suggests that judgments are “appealable in the jurisdiction of U.S.D.C.” (Compl. at 2.) 

Plaintiff also states that she is “refusing” “the judgment of $168.15” (id.) and she relies

upon a referenced “40 page brief” (id. at 2). The brief is not attached to the complaint,

but other state-court documents included in her pleadings refer to a forty-page brief

submitted in support of Plaintiff’s state-court motion for judgment. (See Compl.) 

Although the court cannot glean the specific details of Plaintiff’s purported claim in this

court or her underlying state claim, it is apparent that she is attempting to challenge a

state court judgment. 

This court, however, lacks subject matter jurisdiction over such claims under the

Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. See Gottfried v. Med. Planning Serve., Inc., 142 F.3d 326,
3

330 (6th Cir. 1998). Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, inferior federal courts lack

authority to perform appellate review of state court decisions. See, e.g., Hart v.

Comerica Bank, 957 F. Supp. 958, 968-70 (E.D. Mich. 1997) (describing the RookerFeldman Doctrine). The doctrine applies where, as here, the court is “presented with

claims that raise issues which were the subject of, or inextricably intertwined with, state

court decisions.” Id. at 970. 

The court must dismiss this case because Plaintiff’s claims are “inextricably

intertwined” with the state-court judgment which Plaintiff is attempting to appeal. “Put

simply, claims like these are barred from the inferior federal courts because these

courts have no authority to review state court decisions or any issues that either the

state court or the parties considered or raised, or could have, in the course of the state

court decisions.” Id. Inasmuch as it is apparent from the face of the complaint that the

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case, the court will dismiss the complaint.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. # 2]

is GRANTED and her motion to appoint counsel [Dkt. # 3] is DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e).

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 28, 2008

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, October 28, 2008, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
4

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\08-14319.STEEN.1915.GrantIFP.Dismiss.CHD.wpd