United States District Court, D. Kansas
MARJORIE A. CREAMER, Plaintiff,
17TH JUDICIAL JUDGES; PRESTON PRATT; MIKE KIRCHHOFF Defendant.
RICHARD D. ROGERS, District Judge.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed her complaint on April 16, 2014, seeking to proceed in forma pauperis. On May 5, 2014, Magistrate Judge Sebelius concluded that plaintiff's financial situation warranted a waiver of the filing fee. He, however, directed the U.S. Marshals Service to withhold service of process because questions remained concerning whether plaintiff had stated a claim upon which relief could be granted and whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Judge Sebelius directed plaintiff to show cause to this court on or before May 21, 2014 why this action should not be dismissed for the aforementioned reasons. Plaintiff sought and received an extension to June 3, 2014 to file her response. This time period has since passed and the court has heard nothing from the plaintiff.
In her complaint, plaintiff raises various complaints about actions taken by two state court judges in previous state court proceedings involving her. Although the nature of the claims is not clear, plaintiff apparently contends that her civil rights were violated when the decisions of these judges caused her to lose her home and some horses she owned.
Judge Sebelius initially determined that plaintiff's complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to support any of her claims. He also found that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine would dictate that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case.
The court agrees with the decisions made by Judge Sebelius. The court further finds that plaintiff has failed to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for the aforementioned reasons. Accordingly, the court shall dismiss this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Sebelius be hereby approved and adopted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint shall hereby be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and ...