United States District Court, D. Hawaii
PIERRE A. PLOTKINS, Plaintiff,
REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, COUNTY OF KAUAI, Defendant. v.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF
NO. 8) WITH PREJUDICE
Gillmor, United States District Judge.
Pierre A. Plotkins has filed a Complaint against the Real
Property Assessment Division of the Department of Finance for
the County of Kauai. Plaintiff claims that the County of
Kauai improperly denied his requests for a home exemption
credit that resulted in him having to pay higher property
taxes than he should owe.
asserts the County initiated foreclosure procedures as a
result of Plaintiff's failure to pay his property taxes.
Plaintiff claims that the County took his property in
violation of the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
County of Kauai has filed a Motion to Dismiss asserting that
Plaintiff's Complaint is barred from being litigated in
federal court because his claims were already adjudicated by
Hawaii State Courts. The County asserts that Plaintiff
already challenged the issues relating to the home exemption
credit and the calculation of his property taxes before the
Tax Appeal Court of the State of Hawaii in 2007 and 2011. The
County states the Plaintiff also filed a proceeding in the
Fifth Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii for removal of his
property tax lien filed on April 4, 2012, which was denied
and dismissed on December 27, 2012.
Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's Complaint as his claims are barred by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Rooker v. Fidelity
Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED.
Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
April 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint. (ECF No. 1).
9, 2016, Defendant filed DEFENDANT REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, COUNTY OF KAUAI'S MOTION
TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FILED APRIL 15, 2016. (ECF No. 8).
10, 2016, the Court issued a briefing schedule indicating
Plaintiff was to file his Opposition to Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss on or before May 24, 2016. (ECF No. 9).
18, 2016, Defendant filed an Errata to its Motion to Dismiss.
(ECF No. 11).
31, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Opposition to Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 14).
same date, Plaintiff filed a Request for an Extension of Time
requesting the Court to accept the late filing of his
Opposition. (ECF No. 14-6).
2, 2016, the Court issued a Minute Order granting
Plaintiff's Request for an Extension of Time and accepted
the late filing of Plaintiff's Opposition. (ECF No. 17).
The Court also permitted Defendant additional time to file
its Reply and continued the hearing. (Id.)
13, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document entitled,
"PLAINTIFFS' PIERRE A PLOTKINS NON-HEARING MOTION
FOR EXCUSE FOR ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL AND DELAYED MAIL FILINGS
FROM CANADA." (ECF No. 18).
22, 2016, the Court issued a Minute Order denying
Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 18) as moot because
Plaintiff's filing had already been accepted by the Court
and Plaintiff did not have any other pending documents for
the Court to review. (ECF No. 22).
12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document entitled,
"PLAINTIFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MOTION TO
DISMISS COMPLAINT ADDENDUM." (ECF No. 24).
20, 2016, the Court held a hearing on ...