United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
N. Stivers, Judge
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss (DN 6, 8), and Defendant's Motion to Supplement
(DN 9). The motions are ripe for adjudication. For the
reasons set forth below, Defendants' motions are
Tax Funding, LLC (“ATF”) filed suit in Jefferson
Circuit Court in 2008 to foreclose a tax lien it held on
Plaintiff Michael Green's (“Plaintiff”) real
property. (Def. Halbleib's Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss Ex. 1,
DN 8-2 [hereinafter State Court Docket]). Plaintiff
attempted to delay the sale of his property by filing five
bankruptcy petitions and initiating multiple federal lawsuits
against various individuals-including Defendants in this
action, James Ballinger (“Ballinger”), an
attorney representing ATF, and Edith Halbleib
(“Halbleib”), the Jefferson County Master
Commissioner (collectively “Defendants”)-but his
property was ultimately sold at a master commissioner sale.
See, e.g., In re Green, No. 16-33165-THF
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Jan 6, 2017); Green v. Edwards, No.
3:12-cv-358-S (W.D. Ky. Aug. 3, 2012). One of the lawsuits
Plaintiff filed against Ballinger is currently pending before
another judge in the Western District of Kentucky.
See Complaint at 1, Green v. Bornstein, No.
3:17-cv-00201-DJH-DW (W.D. Ky. Apr. 4, 2017) (DN 1).
his property was sold, Plaintiff brought the instant pro
se action. Though not entirely clear, the Complaint
appears to challenge the state court's judgment regarding
the sale of his property and to allege that Defendants'
conduct throughout the foreclosure proceedings violated his
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process
rights. (See Compl. 1-4, DN 1). For instance, he
claims that the purpose of his suit “to show [that
Defendants used] illegal tactics to achieve a false judgment
. . . .” (Compl. 1). He further alleges that Halbleib
took various illegal actions such as using information
concerning “child arearment [sic] payments
with involvement with children [sic]” during
the proceedings and making him wait “fifteen
minutes” before beginning a scheduled meeting. (Compl.
moved to dismiss the Complaint. (Def. Halbleib's Mem.
Supp. Mot. Dismiss 4-6, DN 8-1 [hereinafter Def.
Halbleib's Mot. Dismiss]; Def. Ballinger's Mot.
Dismiss 1-4, DN 6). Further, by separate motion, Ballinger
asked the Court to sanction Plaintiff for continually filing
frivolous lawsuits against him by dismissing the Complaint
with prejudice. (Def. Ballinger's Mot. Dismiss 9-10).
Defendants' motions are ripe for adjudication.
action arises under the laws of the United States, and this
Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Motion to Dismiss
move to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that: (1)
pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this Court
lacks jurisdiction to entertain it; and (2) it fails to state
a claim on which relief can be granted. (Def. Halbleib's
Mot. Dismiss 4-6; Def. Ballinger's Mot. Dismiss 1-4). The
Court will address each argument in turn.
argue that, pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Complaint. The
Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that federal
district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to review
state court decisions and orders. See Rooker v. Fid. Tr.
Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). In assessing the
doctrine's applicability, courts determine whether the
federal claim is inextricably intertwined with the state
court judgment-i.e., whether “the federal claim
succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongfully
decided the issues before it.” Hutcherson v.
Lauderdale Cty., 326 F.3d 747, 756 (6th Cir. 2003)
the Complaint appears-at least at times-to challenge the
state court judgment.For example, it states that the purpose of
this action is “to correct the false judgment against
Plaintiff . . . .” (Compl. 1). In addition, the
Complaint appears to take issue with certain of the Master
Commissioner's decisions throughout the foreclosure
proceedings, including the determination whether the statute
of limitations precluded the sale. (See Compl. 2
(alleging that Halbleib committed error when she ignored
“proof of legal statutes of limitations
[sic]”)). As a result, to the extent Plaintiff
is challenging state court decisions and orders related to
his foreclosure proceedings rather than
Defendants' alleged misconduct throughout said
proceedings, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear it.
See Kovacic v. Cuyahoga Cty. Dep't of Children &
Family Servs., 606 F.3d 301, ...