Case Name: Edwin WALKER, Appellant v. Lynne ABRAHAM, District Attorney; Philadelphia Sheriff Sale Department; John D. Green, Sheriff
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-09
Citations: 156 F. App'x 536
Docket Number: No. 05-3552
Parties: Edwin WALKER, Appellant v. Lynne ABRAHAM, District Attorney; Philadelphia Sheriff Sale Department; John D. Green, Sheriff.
Judges: Before Chief Judge SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 156
Pages: 536–538

Head Matter:
Edwin WALKER, Appellant v. Lynne ABRAHAM, District Attorney; Philadelphia Sheriff Sale Department; John D. Green, Sheriff.
No. 05-3552.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) Nov. 4, 2005.
Decided Dec. 9, 2005.
Edwin Walker, Dallas, PA, pro se.
Jennifer Donaldson, Office of District Attorney, Mia Carpiniello, City of Philadelphia Law Department, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellees.
Before Chief Judge SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Pro se litigant Edwin Walker, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution in Dallas, Pennsylvania, filed this action against District Attorney Lynne Abraham, the Philadelphia Sheriff Sale Department, and Sheriff John D. Green pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Walker alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights by initiating forfeiture proceedings against a commercial property owned by him without notice and without his consent.
On March 13,1998, Walker was arrested and charged with possession with intent to deliver and delivery of a controlled substance. Walker was convicted by a jury on September 27, 1999 and his conviction was affirmed on October 6, 2004. On April 14, 1998, prior to his conviction, the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office filed a petition for forfeiture of his property, located at 3045 Germantown Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, at which he was arrested and from which he was accused of selling drugs, and $8,422.00, the amount of money seized from Walker upon his arrest. Walker thereafter filed a motion for the return of his property. On April 3, 2002, following a prolonged discovery dispute, the Court of Common Pleas held a hearing with Walker appearing by video conference. The District Attorney offered into evidence the notes of testimony from Walker's criminal trial, which documented the fact that Walker was tried before a jury and convicted of selling drugs out of the 3045 Germantown Avenue property. Walker proffered no evidence in support of his motion. The Court then granted the District Attorney's petition for forfeiture of 3045 Germantown Avenue, finding that the property had been used to store, sell, and distribute narcotics, and denied Walker's motion for the return of his property, holding that Walker had failed to present any evidence of lawful ownership. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed on September 4, 2003.
Walker then initiated the instant action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on November 17, 2004. The District Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, it was without subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Walker's claims against Abraham, Green, or the Sheriff Sale Department regarding the forfeiture and sale of 3045 Germantown Avenue, because to do so would be to exercise jurisdiction over claims that had been " 'actually litigated' in state court" or are " 'inextricably intertwined with [the] state adjudication,' meaning that 'federal relief can only be predicated upon a conviction that the state court was wrong.' " Desi's Pizza, Inc. v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 321 F.3d 411, 419 (3d Cir.2003) (quoting Parkview Assocs. Partnership v. City of Lebanon, 225 F.3d 321, 325 (3d Cir. 2000)); see also Walker v. Horn, 385 F.3d 321, 329 (3d Cir.2004).
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Having granted Walker leave to proceed informa pauper-is on appeal, we must now determine whether Walker's appeal should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An appeal may be dismissed as frivolous if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). The District Court properly determined that it was without subject matter jurisdiction over Walker's allegations regarding the forfeiture and sale of his property, as any grant of relief "would prevent [the] state court from enforcing its order[]." Desi's, 321 F.3d at 422. For the foregoing reasons, Walker's appeal is without legal merit and will be dismissed as legally frivolous.