NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DIANAIN, LLC, Civil Action No. 23-00633 (SDW) (MAH)

Plaintiff,

WHEREAS OPINION v.

KENNETH RIDLEY, February 8, 2023

Defendant.

THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon Defendant Kenneth Ridley’s (“Defendant”) Notice of Removal of a Complaint adjudicated in Union County Superior Court of New Jersey, (D.E. 1); and WHEREAS Defendant seeks to remove the matter to this Court in an effort to forestall “an eviction and Warrant of Removal” that the State Court issued, and to garner him additional time to procure rental assistance, (D.E. 1 at 3–4); and WHEREAS a pro se litigant’s submission, although “[held] to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner,

, 520–21 (1972), must still “‘state a plausible claim for relief.’” Yoder v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 566 F. App’x. 138, 141 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Walker v. Schult,

(2d Cir. 2013)); Martin v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 17-3129,

, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2017); and WHEREAS Defendant fails to set forth any basis for this Court’s jurisdiction under either

or

. Defendant’s removal notice claims that he is a “U.S. Government Defendant,” yet Defendant appears to be a private citizen and not a “Government Defendant.” (See D.E. 1 at 2.) Further, Plaintiff is an LLC and not a government entity, thus no basis for jurisdiction is readily discernable, (id.); and WHEREAS the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine provides that district courts do not have jurisdiction over “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court

judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Vuyanich v. Smithton Borough, F.4th 379, 384 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,

(2005)). Defendant’s matter was already adjudicated in the New Jersey State Court, which thereafter issued an eviction and Warrant of Removal. (D.E. 1 at 3–4.) Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction to review the State Court’s judgment, and removal is barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine; therefore Defendant’s request for removal is sua sponte DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE due to failure to establish jurisdiction under either

or

, and inability to

establish jurisdiction due to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. An appropriate order follows. __/s/ Susan D. Wigenton____ United States District Judge

Orig: Clerk cc: Michael A. Hammer, U.S.M.J. Parties

2