UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

THOMAS BEAUDOIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 08-CV-14289-DT

CHRISTINE C. WHITE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

“MOTION FOR FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION”

Before the court is Plaintiff Thomas Beaudoin’s “Motion for Federal Court

Jurisdiction,” docketed on October 18, 2010. In his pro se motion, Plaintiff requests that

the court assume jurisdiction over Oakland County State Court Case No. 10-111746. 

Based on the documents before the court, it appears that Plaintiff Beaudoin instituted a

case in state court to rescind “Stewards Ruling # 79” and to renew his racing license. 

According to Plaintiff, the state court initially granted the relief requested by Plaintiff, but

then later set aside that ruling. The state court held that it did not have jurisdiction

because of the ongoing federal action and then closed the case. (See Mot. Attachment

at 9.) Plaintiff then attempted to file a motion with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,

asking that the Sixth Circuit assume jurisdiction over the state court matter. (Motion

Attachment at 4.) A case manager with the Sixth Circuit returned the motion, unfiled, to

Plaintiff, who then filed the instant motion in this court. After reviewing the materials

submitted by Plaintiff, the court finds, for two reasons, that it lacks jurisdiction to grant

the relief requested in his motion.
2

First, on March 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Appeal” in this federal case,

thereby divesting this district court of jurisdiction over this case. The filing of a notice of

appeal generally “confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district

court of control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Marrese v. Am.

Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 379 (1985) (citing Griggs v.

Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)(per curiam)). Plaintiff’s

appeal involves similar subject matter as that involved in his state court action and, to

the extent that he is seeking to advance additional arguments in support of his federal

claim, the court lacks jurisdiction pending a resolution of Plaintiff’s appeal.

In any event, the court lacks jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff’s requested relief for an

additional reason. Plaintiff essentially seeks to appeal his state court case to this court. 

However, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over such claims under the RookerFeldman doctrine. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462

(1983); Rooker-Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); see Gottfried v. Med. Planning

Serve., Inc., 142 F.3d 326, 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 Rooker-Feldman 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. To the extent that

Plaintiff seeks to challenge any decision of the state court, he should appeal that

decision to the state court of appeals. 
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\08-14289.BEAUDOIN.LackJurisdiction.wpd

3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Beaudoin’s “Motion for Federal Court

Jurisdiction” [Dkt. # 46] is DENIED.

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 19, 2010

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

on this date, November 19, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522