NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 :

KENDRA BROWN, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-3123 (MLC)

 :

Plaintiff, : O P I N I O N

 :

v. :

 :

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, :

 :

Defendant. :

 :

THE PLAINTIFF, who is pro se, applies for in-forma-pauperis

relief under 28 U.S.C. § (“Section”) 1915 (“Application”). (Dkt.

entry no. 1, Appl.) This Court, based upon the plaintiff’s

financial situation, will (1) grant the Application, and (2) deem

the Complaint to be filed. The Court may now (1) review the

Complaint, and (2) dismiss it sua sponte if it is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,

or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court will

dismiss the Complaint, as it is frivolous and fails to state a

claim on which relief may be granted.

THE PLAINTIFF brings this action (“Federal Action”) pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of her constitutional

rights in a dispute over a mortgage on her property (“Mortgaged

Property”). (See dkt. entry no. 1, Compl.) The Court is able to

discern that (1) a foreclosure action concerning the Mortgaged

Property was instituted in New Jersey Superior Court (“State

Case 3:11-cv-03123-MLC-DEA Document 2 Filed 11/14/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 15
Foreclosure Action”), and (2) a judgment was entered therein. 

(See id. at 1.)1

THE PLAINTIFF is attempting to avoid an order in the State

Foreclosure Action. The proper way to do so is to seek review

through the state appellate process, and then seek certiorari

directly to the United States Supreme Court. See D.C. Ct. of

Apps. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr.

Co., 263 U.S. 413, 414-16 (1923).

THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE prohibits adjudication of an

action where the relief requested would require a federal court

to either determine whether a state court’s decision is wrong or

void that decision, and thus would prevent a state court from

enforcing its orders. See McAllister v. Allegheny Cnty. Fam.

Div., 128 Fed.Appx. 901, 902 (3d Cir. 2005). This Court cannot

directly or indirectly review, negate, void, or provide relief

that would invalidate a decision in the State Foreclosure Action. 

See Moncrief v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 275 Fed.Appx. 149,

152-53 (3d Cir. 2008) (affirming judgment dismissing claims

concerning state foreclosure action, inter alia, as barred by

Rooker-Feldman doctrine because plaintiff sought redress from

state court judgment); Ayres-Fountain v. E. Sav. Bank, 153

 The plaintiff also has brought an action to recover 1

damages for violations of her constitutional rights in a dispute

over a mortgage on a different piece of property. See Brown v.

U.S. Bank National Association, No. 11-3127 (D.N.J.).

2

Case 3:11-cv-03123-MLC-DEA Document 2 Filed 11/14/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 16
Fed.Appx. 91, 92 (3d Cir. 2005) (instructing district court to

dismiss complaint concerning state foreclosure action under

Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also El Ali v. Litton Loan Serv’g,

217 Fed.Appx. 115, 116 n.1 (3d Cir. 2007) (dismissing appeal from

order that dismissed claims concerning foreclosure action, inter

alia, as barred by Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Shih-Ling Chen v.

Rochford, 145 Fed.Appx. 723, 725 (3d Cir. 2005) (same).

THE FEDERAL ACTION also is barred by the doctrine of res

judicata. Res judicata, or claim preclusion: 2

will bar a suit if (1) the judgment in the first action

is valid, final and on the merits; (2) the parties in

both actions are the same or are in privity with each

other; and (3) the claims in the second action . . .

arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the

claims in the first one.

Sibert v. Phelan, 901 F.Supp. 183, 186 (D.N.J. 1995). Thus,

under res judicata, a judgment is given “preclusive effect” by

“foreclosing litigation of matters that should have been raised

in an earlier suit”. Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of

Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 77 n.1 (1984). As a result, a judgment

“foreclos[es] litigation of a matter that never has been

litigated, because of a determination that it should have been

advanced in an earlier suit”. Id.

 The Court may sua sponte address affirmative defenses 2

when a plaintiff proceeds under Section 1915. Ezekoye v. Ocwen

Fed. Bank, 179 Fed.Appx. 111, 114 (3d Cir. 2005).

3

Case 3:11-cv-03123-MLC-DEA Document 2 Filed 11/14/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 17
ALL OF THE COMPONENTS of res judicata may be satisfied here,

as (1) the state court in the State Foreclosure Action has issued

an order or a judgment, which is valid, see Flood v. Braaten, 727

F.2d 303, 308 (3d Cir. 1984) (stating judgment that is final and

thus res judicata in one state’s courts will be given full faith

and credit by all other United States courts), (2) the plaintiff

is a party to the State Foreclosure Action, and the defendant in

the Federal Action is a party in the State Foreclosure Action,

and (3) the claims in the Federal Action arise from the same

transactions or occurrences as the claims that were raised, or

should have been raised, in the State Foreclosure Action. See

Moncrief, 275 Fed.Appx. at 153-54 (affirming judgment dismissing

claims concerning state foreclosure action, inter alia, as barred

by res judicata); Ezekoye, 179 Fed.Appx. at 113 (dismissing

appeal as frivolous — in federal action concerning state

foreclosure proceeding — from order dismissing claims that were

and could have been raised against bank based on res judicata);

Ayres-Fountain, 153 Fed.Appx. at 92 (noting federal claims

concerning state foreclosure action would be barred by res

judicata); see also El Ali, 217 Fed.Appx. at 116 n.1 (dismissing

appeal; noting order dismissed claims concerning state

foreclosure action, inter alia, as barred by res judicata).

THE COURT ALSO NOTES that the defendant here does not appear

to be a state actor, and thus any claims asserting constitutional

4

Case 3:11-cv-03123-MLC-DEA Document 2 Filed 11/14/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 18
violations are frivolous. See Brookhart v. Rohr, 385 Fed.Appx.

67, 68 (3d Cir. 2010) (dismissing appeal from order that dismissed

allegations concerning constitutionally violative conduct by

private parties in state court foreclosure action because they

were not state actors); James v. Heritage Valley Fed. Credit

Union, 197 Fed.Appx. 102, 106 (3d Cir. 2006) (stating defendant

credit union was not state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. §

1983); Awala v. Wachovia Corp., 156 Fed.Appx. 527, 528 (3d Cir.

2005) (stating bank is not state actor merely because it operates

within a regulated industry). 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not cover

merely private conduct, no matter how wrongful. St. Croix v.

Etenad, 183 Fed.Appx. 230, 231 (3d Cir. 2006).3

 The Federal Action would also be barred if the State 3

Foreclosure Action is ongoing. A federal court must abstain from

exercising jurisdiction, pursuant to the Younger abstention

doctrine, when (1) a state court action is ongoing, (2) important

state interests are implicated, and (3) there is an adequate

opportunity to raise federal claims in state court. See

Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S.

423, 435 (1982); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971);

see also Gray v. Pagano, 287 Fed.Appx. 155, 157-58 (3d Cir. 2008)

(dismissing complaint filed in connection to ongoing state

foreclosure action, inter alia, as barred by Younger abstention);

see also El Ali, 217 Fed.Appx. at 116 n.1 (dismissing appeal;

noting district court order dismissed claims concerning ongoing

state foreclosure action as barred by Younger abstention).

 The Federal Action may also be barred by the doctrine of

collateral estoppel. See Bd. of Trs. of Trucking Emps. of N.

Jersey Welfare Fund v. Centra, 983 F.2d 495, 505 (3d Cir. 1992).

5

Case 3:11-cv-03123-MLC-DEA Document 2 Filed 11/14/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 19
THE COURT will dismiss the Complaint for the aforementioned

reasons. The Court will issue an appropriate order and judgment.

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: November 14, 2011

6

Case 3:11-cv-03123-MLC-DEA Document 2 Filed 11/14/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 20