12-3339
Jordan v. Levine
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States 29th day of October, two thousand thirteen.
4
5 PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER,
6 DENNIS JACOBS,
7 CHESTER J. STRAUB,
8 Circuit Judges.
9
10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
11 VICTOR JORDAN,
12 Plaintiff-Appellant,
13
14 -v.- No. 12-3339
15
16 HON. KATHERINE A. LEVINE, A Judge of
17 the New York City Civil Court, Kings
18 County, LENNA S. JORDAN, ROSLYN LOUISE
19 BLACKMAN, and, ALFRED E. LOCASCIO,
20 Marshal, City of New York,
21 Defendants-Appellees.
22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
23
24 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: VICTOR JORDAN, pro se, Brooklyn,
25 NY.
26
27 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: No appearance.
1
1 JUDITH VALE, Assistant Solicitor
2 General, for amicus curiae Eric
3 T. Schneiderman, Attorney
4 General of the State of New
5 York, Albany, NY, in support of
6 Defendant-Appellee Hon.
7 Katherine A. Levine.
8
9 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
10 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Mauskopf, J.).
11
12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
13 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
14 AFFIRMED.
15
16 Victor Jordan, pro se, appeals from a judgment
17 dismissing his complaint sua sponte for lack of subject
18 matter jurisdiction. The complaint alleges constitutional
19 violations arising out of a state court eviction proceeding.
20 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
21 facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on
22 appeal.
23 The district court properly dismissed Jordan’s
24 complaint because Jordan’s claims are barred by the
25 Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Pursuant to that doctrine, federal
26 district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction in “cases
27 brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused
28 by state-court judgments rendered before the district court
29 proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and
30 rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi
31 Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). “[T]here are
2
1 four requirements for the application of Rooker-Feldman”:
2 (1) “the federal-court plaintiff must have lost in state
3 court”; (2) the plaintiff must complain of injuries caused
4 by a “state-court judgment”; (3) the plaintiff must “invite
5 district court review and rejection of that judgment”; and
6 (4) “the state-court judgment must have been rendered before
7 the district court proceedings commenced.” See Hoblock v.
8 Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 85 (2d Cir.
9 2005) (footnote, internal quotations, and alteration
10 omitted).
11 These requirements are satisfied here. Jordan is
12 seeking an order staying the enforcement of a state court
13 warrant of eviction. Jordan’s claims against Judge Levine
14 (alleged misconduct during the state court proceedings) and
15 Marshal Locascio (unconstitutional enforcement of the
16 warrant of eviction) arise from and concern only the state
17 court eviction judgment and were filed after that judgment
18 was entered. District courts lack jurisdiction “over
19 challenges to state court decisions in particular cases
20 arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges
21 allege that the state court’s action was unconstitutional.”
22 D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983)
23 (emphasis added).
3
1 A pro se complaint usually should not be dismissed
2 without granting the plaintiff leave to amend. See Cuoco v.
3 Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). However, leave
4 to amend is unnecessary if it would be futile. See id.
5 We have considered all of Jordan’s remaining arguments
6 and conclude that they are without merit. The judgment of
7 the district court is hereby affirmed.
8
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
11
4