NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

BARBARA P. GLANDER, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1585 (MLC)

:

Plaintiff, : O P I N I O N

:

v. :

:

EYYA REALTY, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

 :

THE PLAINTIFF, who is pro se, brings this action (“Federal

Action”) concerning the alleged violation of her constitutional

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

Property”), on which a sheriff’s sale is imminent. (See dkt.

entry no. 1, Compl.) From the voluminous papers filed by the

plaintiff, the Court is able to discern that (1) a foreclosure

action concerning the Mortgaged Property was instituted in New

Jersey Superior Court (“State Foreclosure Action”), and (2) a

judgment was entered therein on or about July 21, 2010.1

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

 The Court notes that the allegations contained in the 1

plaintiff’s papers are rambling and difficult to follow, and thus

violate Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10.

Case 3:11-cv-01585-MLC-DEA Document 5 Filed 04/08/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 269
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

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;

noting order 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 STATE FORECLOSURE ACTION also is ongoing, as there are

indications within the plaintiff’s papers that she is currently

2

Case 3:11-cv-01585-MLC-DEA Document 5 Filed 04/08/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 270
engaged in motion practice in the State Foreclosure Action. 

(See dkt. entry no. 4 (containing references to a motion to

dismiss).) 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). 

This Court cannot interfere with the ongoing State Foreclosure

Action. See Gray v. Pagano, 287 Fed.Appx. 155, 157-58 (3d Cir.

2008) (dismissing complaint filed in connection with 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 order dismissed claims concerning

ongoing state foreclosure action, inter alia, as barred by

Younger abstention).2

THE PLAINTIFF e-mailed a copy of an intended application for

emergent relief in the Federal Action to the Clerk’s Office. The

Court directed the Clerk’s Office to place it on the docket. 

(See dkt. entry no. 4.) The Court finds that the plaintiff is

unlikely to succeed on the merits, as the Court is dismissing the

 The Court notes that the Federal Action is also likely 2

barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

3

Case 3:11-cv-01585-MLC-DEA Document 5 Filed 04/08/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 271
Complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 65; see also L.Civ.R. 65.1 (stating

no order to show cause to bring a matter for a hearing will be

granted except on a clear and specific showing of good and

sufficient reasons by the party seeking relief as to why a

procedure other than by notice of motion is necessary). The

application for emergent relief will be denied.

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: April 7, 2011

4

Case 3:11-cv-01585-MLC-DEA Document 5 Filed 04/08/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 272