CENTRAL DIVISION LAURA HAMMETT PLAINTIFF VS. 4:21-CV-00857-BRW SUSAN KAYE WEAVER, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Pending is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 3). Plaintiff has responded and Defendants have replied.1 Plaintiff filed a complaint criticizing how her state-court case is proceeding. Defendants are the presiding judge, the court reporter, and Plaintiff’s lawyer from the state-court case.2 For reasons including, but not limited to, failure to state a claim, Rooker-Feldman,3 and immunity, the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 3) is GRANTED. Additionally, there is no federal cause of action against any Defendant, so diversity is lacking.4 Finally, I decline to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims, assuming there are any. This case is DISMISSED. The motion to stay discovery (Doc. No. 6) is DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of October, 2021.

Billy Roy Wilson_______________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1Doc. Nos. 9, 11. 2Doc. No. 1. 3Under Rooker-Feldman, federal courts, other than the United States Supreme Court, do not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear challenges to state court judgments. If a “federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issue before it,” the claim may not be heard by the federal court. Lemonds v. St. Louis County,

, 492 (8th Cir. 2000). 4 Federal court diversity jurisdiction requires an amount in dispute over $75,000 and that all the parties on one side of the controversy must be citizens of different states from all of the