Opinion
8:20CV229
01-11-2021
DANNY L. SING, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEBRASKA, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a prisoner, has filed a pro se Complaint entitled "NOTICE OF APPEAL" in "CASE NO. A-19-001149." It appears that Plaintiff's case in this court is an attempt to appeal the Nebraska Court of Appeals' decision in A-19-1149, Sing v. Department of Correctional Services. That decision was an appeal from the Lancaster County District Court.
This information was obtained online through the JUSTICE site, https://www.nebraska.gov/justice/case.cgi, which contains Nebraska court records. The court can sua sponte take judicial notice of proceedings in other courts if they relate directly to the matters at issue. Conforti v. United States, 74 F.3d 838, 840 (8th Cir. 1996). See also Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 760 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (courts "may take judicial notice of judicial opinions and public records"). --------
Plaintiff's purported appeal from a state-court judgment is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that, with the exception of habeas corpus petitions, lower federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over challenges to state-court judgments and state proceedings. Mosby v. Ligon, 418 F.3d 927, 931 (8th Cir. 2005). See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). Specifically, the doctrine "bars federal courts from hearing cases brought by the losing parties in state court proceedings alleging 'injury caused by the state-court judgment and seeking review and rejection of that judgment.'" Mosby, 418 F.3d at 931 (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005)). Simply put, a federal district court does not possess authority in a civil rights case to review or alter a final judgment of a state judicial proceeding. See West v. Crnkovich, No. 8:12CV273, 2013 WL 2295461, at *3 (D. Neb. May 24, 2013). Here, Plaintiff asks this court to examine the decision of a state appellate court in a tort matter, and this court lacks jurisdiction to do so. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. This case is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; and
2. Judgment will be entered by separate document.
DATED this 11th day of January, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge