Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Roberts v. State of Texas

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

May 9, 2016

MICHELE M. ROBERTS, and other Sovereigns of the State [Texas and resident foreigners similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS; GREG ABBOTT, Governor of the State of Texas; JOHN STEEN, Secretary of State of the State of Texas; ALL OTHER OFFICIALS ACTING UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW, Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 10) WITH PREJUDICE

HELEN GILLMOR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Michele M. Roberts has filed a Complaint against the State of Texas, its Governor, its Secretary of State, and all other officials acting under color of state law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff states that her Complaint is brought on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals. Plaintiff has not moved for class certification.

Plaintiff claims the Defendants violated her constitutional rights and the rights of others because the Defendants have enforced Texas statutes and codes “without authenticating said publication of laws” and “omitting the official seal of the State of Texas.” Plaintiff requests that the federal court review a decision of the Court of Appeals of Texas, which found Texas statutes and codes do not require authentication by the Texas Secretary of State.

The Court construes Plaintiff’s pleading liberally as she is proceeding pro se. The Complaint, however, is difficult to decipher and portions are unintelligible.

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on numerous grounds, including lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint, as her claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. In addition, Plaintiff does not have standing to bring the Complaint.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint. (ECF No. 1).

On March 23, 2016, Defendants filed DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(1), 12(B)(2) AND 12(B)(6). (ECF No. 10).

On March 24, 2016, the Court issued a briefing schedule indicating Plaintiff was to file her Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss by April 13, 2016. (ECF No. 14).

Plaintiff did not file an Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

The Court elected to decide the matter without a hearing pursuant to District of Hawaii Local Rule 7.2(d).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A plaintiff has the burden of proving that subject-matter jurisdiction does in fact exist. Thornhill Publ’g Co., Inc. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.