418 F. App'x 127
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Slewion, pro se, filed a federal complaint alleging a 2004 assault and injury and that a state court arbitration awarded him relief.
- He claimed state court defendants forged a discovery deadline (April 6, 2009) to May 7, 2009, preventing testimony on liability and damages.
- He named Venema, Proko, and Keahey as defendants in federal court seeking compensatory damages.
- The district court granted IFP status but dismissed the complaint as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
- The district court reasoned it lacked jurisdiction to overturn a state court judgment under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
- On appeal, Slewion relies on prior non-precedential Third Circuit language and argues criminal theories under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rooker-Feldman deprives the district court of jurisdiction | Slewion argues the district court can review state-court decisions. | Venema/Proko/Keahey argue Rooker-Feldman bars such review. | Yes; district court lacked jurisdiction. |
| Whether Slewion has a private right of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 | Slewion asserts three federal offenses for forgery of the order. | There is no private right of action under § 1001. | No private right of action; not actionable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (narrow application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine)
- D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (establishes Rooker-Feldman doctrine)
- Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2007) (no private right of action under § 1001)
- Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000) (plenary review; standards described)