Jordan v. Levine

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