Poydras v. One West Bank

Full title: NORMAN POYDRAS, JR., Plaintiff, v. ONE WEST BANK, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: May 20, 2009

Case No. 09-11435 (E.D. Mich. May. 20, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. 09-11435.

May 20, 2009

ORDER

LAWRENCE ZATKOFF, District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this case on April 16, 2009, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. On May 18, 2009, Plaintiff filed a "motion for injunctive releif [sic] and temporary restraining order prusuant [sic] to MCR 3.310(B)(1)(a)(b)(c)" [dkt 5]. In his motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue a temporary restraining order and enjoin an eviction currently scheduled for May 21, 2009.

II. ANALYSIS

Federal district courts lack jurisdiction to directly review the judgments of state courts. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). Courts have consistently applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to claims requesting review of a state court's eviction and foreclosure proceedings. See, e.g., Austin v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 08-15127, 2008 WL 4954617, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 18, 2008); Berry v. Ocwen Loan Servs., LLC, No. 08-13760, 2008 WL 4648123, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 21, 2008); Jones v. Heartland Home Fin. Corp., No. 07-14398, 2008 WL 4561693, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 10, 2008). Therefore, this Court does not enjoy jurisdiction to enjoin this eviction from proceeding.

Plaintiff also includes a recitation of damages allegedly sustained under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 872, and 1001. These are federal criminal statutes, and they do not provide a private cause of action. See Kafele v. Frank Wooldridge Co., 108 Fed. Appx. 307 (6th Cir. 2004) (no private cause of action under 18 U.S.C. § 241); Massey v. Bank of Edmondson County, 49 Fed. Appx. 604 (6th Cir. 2002) (no private cause of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1001); Gipson v. Callahan, 18 F. Supp. 2d 662 (W.D. Tex. 1997) (no private cause of action under 18 U.S.C. § 872). Thus, this relief is denied as well.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, and for the above reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief and temporary restraining order [dkt 5], and all relief requested therein, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.