Mary Washington v. State of NJ

HLD-047 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-3603
___________
MARY E. WASHINGTON,
Appellant
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(E.D. Pa. Civil No. 10-cv-03900)
District Judge: Honorable Gene E.K. Pratter
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
November 30, 2010
Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and WEIS, Circuit Judges
Opinion filed: March 8, 2011
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
Mary Washington, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing her complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
1
Washington alleges in her complaint that on November 4, 2008, at 11:00
p.m. she inquired about her missing vehicle at a police precinct. Washington states that
police officers gave her a summons for disorderly conduct and a parking violation.
Washington further states that her car had been legally parked. Although the remainder
of Washington’s complaint is somewhat unclear, she appears to aver that she attempted to
challenge the seizure of her vehicle in New Jersey state court, but the state courts would
not hear her case. As relief, Washington states that she seeks, among other things,
“recovery for an illegal impound of her vehicle.” Complaint at 4. Washington named the
State of New Jersey as a defendant in the caption of her complaint and listed as
defendants within her complaint the Trenton Municipal Court, Department of City of
Trenton Police, Goodwill Rescue Mission of the City of Trenton, and Mercer County
Community College.
In dismissing Washington’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the
District Court explained that it appeared that Washington sought review of decisions of
the Superior Court and Supreme Court of New Jersey and that it lacked jurisdiction to
review such decisions under the Rooker-Feldman1 doctrine. The District Court further
noted that there were no allegations in the complaint that would allow the Court to find
that venue lies in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
1
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker
v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).
2
This appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our standard of review
is plenary. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999).
To the extent Washington seeks review of New Jersey state court decisions,
the District Court correctly ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to review such decisions. Great
Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 166 (3d Cir.
2010). We also agree with the District Court that venue in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania appears to be improper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Even if venue lies in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Washington’s complaint does not reflect a basis for
federal jurisdiction. Although the District Court generally must afford a plaintiff an
opportunity to amend a complaint that fails to state a cause of action before dismissal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), leave to amend is not required here because
Washington’s complaint, together with her filings in this Court, demonstrate that
affording such an opportunity would be futile. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293
F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, because this appeal fails to raise a substantial question, we
will affirm the District Court’s judgment.2
2
We have considered all of Washington’s filings. The filings do not alter our
decision and all outstanding motions are denied.
3