UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DAVID PAUL RUSSELL, Plaintiff, Case No. 5:02-cv-108 v. Honorable David W. McKeague STEPHEN GARRARD, et al., Defendants. OPINION This is a civil action brought by a pro se plaintiff. Plaintiff initiated the action by filing a document captioned Notice to Parties of Submission for Certorari [sic] For Order Denying Application for Leave to Appeal, Denying Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying Motion for Costs and Denying Motion for Costs and to Hold Counsel in Contempt. The body of plaintiff s pleading is an unintelligible, stream-of-consciousness recitation of factual statements punctuated by legal citations. It is impossible to discern the nature of plaintiff s claims from the face of his pleading. Plaintiff has, however, attached documents from previous court proceedings, from which it appears that plaintiff presented an unsuccessful claim for unemployment compensation to the Michigan agency responsible for unemployment compensation. Thereafter, he sought review unsuccessfully in the state circuit court, court of appeals, and supreme court, as well as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff has now initiated this action, in which he apparently seeks review by certiorari of the decision of the Michigan Unemployment Agency, as well as monetary damages

2 from the State of Michigan, Circuit Judge Dennis C. Kolenda, the Clerks of the Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, and the attorneys who represented plaintiff s former employer and union. The court has granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, in light of his indigence. Under the provisions of federal law, PUB. L. No , 110 STAT (1996, the court is required to dismiss any action brought under federal law in forma pauperis if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e(2. An action may be dismissed as frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989. Accordingly, an action is frivolous within the meaning of sections 1915A and 1915(e(2 when it is based on either an inarguable legal conclusion or fanciful factual allegations. 490 U.S. at 325. A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted when it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations of the complaint. Jones v. City of Carlisle, 3 F.3d 945, 947 (6th Cir In applying these standards, the court must read plaintiff s pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972, and accept plaintiff s allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992. Applying this standard, the court finds that plaintiff s complaint is utterly frivolous on a number of grounds. Plaintiff s essential request is that this court review the administrative unemployment decision and the subsequent state-court judgments refusing him unemployment compensation. Such a request is beyond this court s subject-matter jurisdiction. The federal district courts lack appellate jurisdiction over the state courts. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483 n.16 (1983; Worker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, (1923; see also Brower -2-

3 v. Michigan Supreme Court, No , 2002 WL , at * 1 (6th Cir. June 27, Entitlement to unemployment compensation is a matter of state statutory law and involves no federal question reviewable in this court. Plaintiff s attempts to sue Judge Kolenda for damages arising from the judge s decision in a circuit court action are barred by the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991; see also Riser v. Schnieder, No , 2002 WL , at * 1 (6th Cir. June 18, His suit against the Clerks of the supreme court and court of appeals of the State of Michigan is barred by the related doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity, which protects clerks of the court who act within the scope of their authority or issue process pursuant to the rules or orders of the court. See Bush v. Rauch, 38 F.3d 842, 847 (6th Cir. 1994; Foster v. Walsh, 864 F.2d 416, 417 (6th Cir. 1988; see also Sirbaugh v. Young, No , 2001 WL , at * 2 (6th Cir. Dec. 7, Plaintiff s claim against the State of Michigan and its agency is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 678 (1979. Plaintiff s federal action against union officials and the attorneys who represented the union or his employer must fail, because such persons do not act under color of state law. It is well settled that neither a litigant nor an attorney representing a party in state court acts under color of state law by bringing or defending an action in the state courts. See Catz v. Chalker, 142 F.3d 279, 289 (6th Cir. 1998; Kelm v. Hyatt, 44 F.3d 415, (6th Cir. 1995; see also Newsome v. Merz, No , 2001 WL , at * 2 (6th Cir. Aug. 21, Plaintiff has apparently vowed to continue bringing lawsuits until some court agrees with him on his unemployment compensation claim. The federal district court has no jurisdiction over such matters, nor can plaintiff sue in this court everyone who was involved in previous proceedings, merely because he disagrees with the result. This action will be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e(2. In addition, plaintiff will be denied leave to appeal in forma -3-

4 pauperis. The court notes that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has already rejected plaintiff s attempts to embroil the federal courts in his unemployment controversy. Any further attempt at appeal would likewise be frivolous. Plaintiff will therefore be required to pay the entire $105 filing fee as a prerequisite to taking an appeal of this judgment. Dated: July 9, 2002 /s David W. McKeague David W. McKeague United States District Judge -4-

5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DAVID PAUL RUSSELL, Plaintiff, Case No. 5:02-cv-108 v. Honorable David W. McKeague STEPHEN GARRARD, et al., Defendants. JUDGMENT In accordance with the opinion filed this date: IT IS ORDERED that the captioned case be and hereby is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S..C. 1915(e(2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis, as any appeal would be frivolous. Dated: July 9, 2002 /s / David W. McKeague David W. McKeague United States District Judge