In re Darrell Finley

Summary

A United States Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Darrell Finley’s amended complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The recommendation concludes that Finley failed to establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 754 and that his claims effectively seek federal appellate review of a Florida state-court writ of possession and eviction, which is barred by the Rooker–Feldman doctrine.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff cannot invoke subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 754 without alleging and supporting that the plaintiff was appointed as a receiver over the property at issue and that the statutory prerequisites are satisfied.
2. The federal district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over claims whose substance was an appellate challenge to the state-court writ of possession and eviction, because the requested relief would require review, modification, or invalidation of the state-court determinations.
3. Dismissal without prejudice was required because Finley failed to establish any basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Finley established subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 754 by alleging that he was an appointed receiver over the property.
2. Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the federal action because the amended complaint effectively challenged a state-court writ of possession and eviction.
3. Whether dismissal without prejudice was required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

dismissed