Brown v. Saginaw County Treasurer

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: September 13, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-12150
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

NELLIA BROWN,

Plaintiff, Case No. 24-12150 v. Honorable Robert J. White SAGINAW COUNTY TREASURER,

Defendant.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiff Nellia Brown filed a federal complaint seeking to “appeal” and “revers[e]” a decision by the 70th District Court in Saginaw County, Michigan “to foreclose on [her] property due to arrear in taxes.” ECF No. 1, PageID.8, 14. Unfortunately for Plaintiff, the Court cannot give her the relief she seeks. Federal district courts (like this one) are limited in the types of cases they can decide. One of these limits is called the Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine, which stops a federal court from “review[ing] a case litigated and decided in state court.” Anderson v. Charter Twp. of Ypsilanti, 266 F.3d 487, 492 (6th Cir. 2001) (cleaned up); see Abbott v. Michigan, 474 F.3d 324, 328 (6th Cir. 2007) (similar). To give Plaintiff the relief she seeks here, the Court would have to treat this case as “a prohibited appeal of the state-court judgment” and rule “that the state

court” that decided Plaintiff’s case “was wrong.” Tropf v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 289 F.3d 929, 937 (6th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted); accord Bey v. Wayne Cnty. Treasurer, No. 23-10612, 2023 WL 6797491, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 13, 2023) (“if

this Court were to grant Plaintiff his requested relief” from a state court’s foreclosure judgment “it would be acting as an appellate court” in a way that is “prohibited by Rooker-Feldman”). That is not allowed. If Plaintiff believes that the state court’s decision was wrong, she can seek to correct it through the state appellate courts. See,

e.g., Self-Represented Litigants, Michigan Courts, https://perma.cc/5FTL-HCUJ. Accordingly, The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No.1) is DISMISSED for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot.

Dated: September 13, 2024 s/Robert J. White Robert J. White United States District Judge