Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moore v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois


October 7, 2011

MOORE
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO.

Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge Joan B. Gottschall Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge

TITLE CASE

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The Defendants' motion to dismiss [4] is granted. The Plaintiff's foreclosure appeal is barred by application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and the Plaintiff fails to state any facts or law that form the basis of a federal claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

*Mail AO 450 form.

STATEMENT

The Plaintiff in this matter, Albert Jerome Moore, represents himself pro se and asks this court to reverse his eviction, which resulted from an in rem foreclosure action in the Circuit Court of Cook County. (Compl. ¶ 5). He notes that, prior to the foreclosure action, a Certificate of Reconveyance was issued to him regarding his property. (Compl. ¶ 1). The Defendants, including Bridget M. O'Neill, Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., and Judge Franklin Ulysses Valderrama, have filed a motion to dismiss. For the reasons stated below, this court grants the motion.

In considering the Defendants' motion to dismiss, this court must generously construe the Plaintiff's pro se pleadings, which are not held to the same stringent standards expected of pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 969 (7th Cir. 2006); McCormick v. City of Chi., 230 F.3d 319, 325 (7th Cir. 2000). Nonetheless, the pro se litigant may plead himself out of court by alleging facts that defeat the claims presented in the complaint. See Kolupa v. Roselle Park Dist., 438 F.3d 713, 715 (7th Cir. 2006); Lekas v. Briley, 405 F.3d 602, 613-14 (7th Cir. 2005).

Here, the Plaintiff has pleaded himself out of court by effectively acknowledging that his claim is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. As the Rooker-Feldman doctrine makes clear, a district court has "no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings." D. C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).The Plaintiff notes in his complaint that Judge Franklin Valderrama of the Circuit Court of Cook County-a state court judge-issued an in rem order in this matter on May 6, 2009. (Compl. ¶ 5). The Plaintiff cannot use this court as a forum to appeal the state court's foreclosure decision-he must exhaust the procedures of the Illinois courts, including the Illinois appellate courts, before appealing his case to the Supreme Court. See Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482 (suggesting that, in general, the only avenue to appeal to a federal court from a state court judgment is via the United States Supreme Court).

Beyond this, moreover, the Defendants properly note that this complaint must be dismissed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The Plaintiff's complaint does not raise any substantive facts or areas of federal law that will support any plausible causes of action.

This action must be dismissed for the reasons discussed above.

Courtroom Deputy RJ/CAS

20111007

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.