Opinion
04-CV-4281 (CBA).
October 29, 2004
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action claiming that he was denied due process in proceedings in which his former wife obtained orders awarding child support and maintenance arrears. Plaintiff seeks vacatur of several orders entered by New York state courts and a new hearing in New York state court regarding "the amount of liability, if any, owed by the plaintiff to the defendant." (Compl. at 5.) Plaintiff paid the filing fee to begin this action. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
According this pro se complaint the close and sympathetic reading to which it is entitled, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam), it reveals no basis for the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's suit. "The absence of such jurisdiction is non-waivable; before deciding any case we are required to assure ourselves that the case is properly within our subject matter jurisdiction." Wynn v. AC Rochester, 273 F.3d 153, 157 (2d Cir. 2001); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (h) (3). "It is common ground that in our federal system of limited jurisdiction any party or the courtsua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings, may raise the question of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction. . . ." Manway Constr. Co. Inc. v. Housing Authority of City of Hartford, 711 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1983). Where jurisdiction is lacking, dismissal is mandatory. Id.; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (h) (3).
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes the Court from exercising jurisdiction in this matter. The Supreme Court held inRooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923), andDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983), that a United States District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings, except for general constitutional challenges and reviews pursuant to an application for a writ of habeas corpus. See Kropelnicki v. Siegel, 290 F.3d 118, 128 (2d Cir. 2002); Phifer v. City of New York, 289 F.3d 49, 55 (2d Cir. 2002). Subject matter jurisdiction is necessarily lacking if the exercise of jurisdiction would result in the reversal or modification of a state court judgment. Hachamovitch v. DeBuono, 159 F.3d 687, 693 (2d Cir. 1998). As plaintiff brings the instant complaint as a direct challenge to an order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, the complaint must be dismissed.
With the exception of habeas corpus review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1996), the United States Supreme Court is the only federal court that may review a state court's judicial decision. 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) (2004).
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine also operates to bar this Court from determining whether plaintiff's due process rights were violated in the course of the state court proceedings, as the doctrine prohibits district courts from reviewing claims that are "inextricably intertwined" with a state court's determinations.Kropelnicki, 290 F.3d at 128). "`[I]nextricably intertwined' means, at a minimum, that where a federal plaintiff had an opportunity to litigate a claim in a state proceeding . . . subsequent litigation of the claim will be barred under theRooker-Feldman doctrine if it would be barred under the principles of preclusion." Moccio v. New York State Office of Court Admin., 95 F.3d 195, 199 (2d Cir. 1996) (citing Penzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc. 481 U.S. 1, 25 (1987) (Marshall, J., concurring) ("[T]he federal claim is inextricably intertwined with the state-court judgment if the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it.")). The fact that plaintiff alleges constitutional violations is of no consequence to this analysis. See Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486 (federal district courts are without subject matter jurisdiction "over challenges to state court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state court's action was unconstitutional");Cogswell v. Rodriquez, 304 F. Supp. 2d. 350 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (federal court lacked jurisdiction over due process challenge to state court award of child support, as the due process claim was inextricably intertwined with the state court's determinations). This Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's due process claim.
Whereas, ordinarily, the Court would allow plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint, Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593 (2d Cir. 2000), it need not afford that opportunity here where it is clear from the face of the complaint that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (h) (3). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.