Opinion
No. 99-73256
August 4, 2000
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Before the Court is Defendants' March 29, 2000 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiffs filed a response April 27, 2000. This Court heard oral argument July 13, 2000.
Backaround Facts
Plaintiff, Peterson Novelties, Inc. ("Peterson") is a seasonal seller of fireworks. In the spring and early summer of 1996, Peterson sold fireworks out of a tent it had erected on Woodward Avenue in the City of Berkley. Plaintiffs' permit to conduct its business was the subject of various proceedings in Oakland County Circuit Court ("OCCC").
Plaintiff Harold Barman is the owner of Peterson Novelties, Inc..
On April 24, 1996, Plaintiffs filed a motion for mandamus and injunctive relief in OCCC to compel the City of Berkley to process its application for a seasonal sales permit. (Defendants' Exhibit B, Case No. 95-4988 17). On May 9, 1996, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion. The order limited the permit to those fireworks allowed for sale under Michigan law.
In June of 1996, after receiving information regarding the possible sale of illegal fireworks, the Berkley Public Safety Department investigated the Peterson tent. The officers seized fireworks believed to be illegal and arrested two sales persons.
Peterson then filed an emergency motion for a show cause order why Defendants should not be held in contempt. In this June 24, 1996 emergency motion, Plaintiffs referenced the court's May 9, 1996 order and requested the court to: (1) issue a show cause order requiring the City of Berkley to show why it should not be held in contempt of the court's previous order and be subject to contempt damages; and (2) to order the return of property seized from Plaintiffs. (Defendants' Exhibit D). The court granted Plaintiffs' motion, issued the show cause order, and ordered most of the property to be returned. (Defendants' Exhibit E).
On July 3, 1996, the court entered an order reaffirming its May 9, 1996 order. However, the court did not issue an order of contempt nor award damages for contempt.
On July 26, 1996, Peterson filed a motion for declaratory relief, seeking a ruling that the Michigan statute prohibiting the sales of certain fireworks was unconstitutional for vagueness. (Defendants' Exhibit G). On September 6, 1996, the court granted the requested declaratory relief.
Plaintiffs bring the present action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of due process, unreasonable seizure, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and First Amendment retaliation for alleged constitutional violations arising from the actions which formed the basis of their prior state suit.
Standard of Review
In a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12 (c), the Court's inquiry is limited to whether the challenged pleadings set forth allegations sufficient to make out the elements of a right to the relief sought. Windsor v. The Tennessean, 719 F.2d 155, 158 (6th Cir. 1988); Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 11 (6th Cir. 1987) (A judgment on the pleadings under F.R.C.P. 12(c) is treated under the same standards applied to dismissal for failure to state a claim under F.R.C.P. 12 (b)(6)).
Law and Analysis
Defendants seek a judgment on the pleadings arguing that the present § 1983 action is "inextricably intertwined" with those issues raised in Plaintiffs' state court claims. Accordingly, the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine precludes this Court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over these claims.
The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine is derived from Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The doctrine expresses principles that "federal trial courts have only original subject matter, and not appellate, jurisdiction and [...may not entertain appellate review of] or collateral attack on a state court judgment. Singleton v. Fifth Third Bank of Western Ohio, et al., 230 B.R. 533 (6th Cir. 1999).
It prevents a district court from ruling on issues which are "inextricably intertwined" with claims decided in state court proceedings. Anderson v. Charter Township of Ypsilanti, 71 F. Supp. 2 d 730 (E.D. Mich. 1999), citing Keene Corp. v. Cass, 908 F.2d 293, 296 (8th Cir. 1990). The Keene court explained:
Under the Feldman doctrine, the 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 issue before it. Where federal relief can only be predicated upon a conviction that the state court was wrong, it is difficult to conceive that the federal proceeding is, in substance, anything other than a prohibited appeal of the state court judgment.
In the instant case, Plaintiffs' allegations of constitutional violations restates many of the allegations made in Plaintiffs' earlier motions, triggering application of the Rooker-Feidman Doctrine. In fact, paragraphs 7-36 of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint are nearly identical to allegations contained in its motion for mandamus and injunctive relief in the state court action.
Two recent factually similar cases have invoked the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine to dismiss cases based upon a Michigan municipalities' enforcement of the Michigan Fireworks Statute. In Burda Brothers, Inc. v. Walsh, 61 F. Supp.2d 648 (E.D. Mich. 1999) (J. Gadola), individuals brought an action in federal court asserting § 1983 claims and other declaratory relief. The court dismissed the plaintiffs claim because "the party against whom the doctrine is being applied had the opportunity to raise the issue at a prior state court proceeding, and the issue was adjudicated in the prior state court proceeding."
Moreover, in a case involving the same plaintiff, Peterson Novelties, Inc. v. Royal Oak Township, 98-71094, Slip. op. (E.D. Mich. Dec. 16, 1999), Judge Rosen dismissed Plaintiffs claim pursuant to the Rooker-Feidman Doctrine. In that case, Plaintiff filed a federal action seeking, among other things, damages for its claim of violation of state and federal constitutional rights based upon Royal Oak Township's search and seizure of illegal fireworks at Plaintiffs tent. In dismissing the federal suit, Judge Rosen noted:
The issues raised in this action are clearly "inextricably intertwined" with the state court decision. All of the claims arise out of the very same incidents which gave rise to the Oakland County action. Id at p. 15.
Plaintiffs do not challenge the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine but rather argue that the federal claims are not "inextricably intertwined" with the state claims. Where the majority of claims are identical, Plaintiffs' argument in this regard must fail.
Alternatively, Plaintiffs argue that even if the federal claims are "inextricably intertwined" with the state claims, this Court should refrain from dismissing certain of its claims (illegal seizure, false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution) because Plaintiffs did not have the opportunity to raise these claims until the criminal charges were dismissed July 21, 1998.
Plaintiffs argue that under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims for illegal search, unreasonable seizure, false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution did not ripen and could not have been brought in any court prior to July 21, 1998, when criminal charges were dismissed.
However even if one were to accept Plaintiffs' Heck v. Humphrey argument, Plaintiffs do not explain why these claims could not have been added to the state action when the criminal charges were dismissed July 21, 1998. Plaintiffs' reference to the burden of keeping a state court action open for two years and its appeals to efficiency and finality are unpersuasive.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' March 29, 2000 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.