Barjaktarovic v. State of Hawaii, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii dismisses Milica Barjaktarovic’s amended complaint without prejudice, except for claims against the United States Department of Justice, which are dismissed with prejudice. The order concludes that the claims primarily constitute impermissible de facto appeals of state-court judgments under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and addresses deficiencies in the pro se pleading. The court reserves ruling on the applications to proceed without prepaying fees or costs and to participate in electronic filing, and denies the remaining motions as moot.

Holdings

1. The amended complaint was barred because it was brought by state-court losers, complained of injuries caused by state-court judgments, challenged judgments entered before the federal proceedings, and requested federal district court review and rejection of those judgments.
2. Plaintiff's constitutional, conspiracy, and fraud allegations did not avoid Rooker-Feldman because they challenged the state-court judgments themselves and alleged, at most, intrinsic fraud rather than extrinsic fraud.
3. Plaintiff was granted a final opportunity to file a second amended complaint that cures the defects identified in the order and complies with the applicable pleading rules.
4. The DOJ claim was dismissed with prejudice because Plaintiff failed to amend the claim by the court-ordered deadline, did not name the DOJ in the amended complaint, and no less drastic alternative was available.
5. The court reserved ruling on the IFP and electronic-filing applications and denied the other pending motions as moot because the amended complaint was dismissed and any future applications would depend on a surviving second amended complaint.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint constituted a prohibited de facto appeal of state-court judgments under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
2. Whether allegations of constitutional violations, conspiracy, and fraud constituted a general constitutional challenge or extrinsic fraud sufficient to avoid the Rooker-Feldman bar.
3. Whether Plaintiff should receive leave to file a second amended complaint to cure the pleading and jurisdictional defects.
4. Whether the claims against the United States Department of Justice should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to amend after receiving an opportunity to do so.
5. Whether Plaintiff's pending applications and other motions should be resolved while the amended complaint was being dismissed.

Disposition

dismissed