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.

Rothing v. Lambert

United States District Court, D. Montana, Butte Division

June 11, 2014

PETER ROTHING, Plaintiff,
v.
MARTY LAMBERT, JOE SKINNER, and STEVE WHITE, Defendants.

ORDER

CAROLYN S. OSTBY, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Peter Rothing ("Rothing") claims that Defendants conspired to violate his civil and constitutional rights during state court litigation. ECF 1-Complaint. [1] Now pending is Defendants Marty Lambert, Joe Skinner, and Steve White's (hereinafter "Defendants") Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. ECF 41. [2]

I. BACKGROUND

The background of this case was fully set forth in the Court's Order of March 24, 2014. ECF 31. The parties being well aware of the facts in this matter, they will not be repeated herein.

II. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

A. Parties' Arguments

Defendants Lambert, Skinner, and White (hereinafter "Defendants") argue this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Rothing's challenges to state court decisions based upon the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. ECF 42-Brief in Support of Mtn to Dismiss.

Rothing does not provide a substantive argument addressing the merits of Defendants' motion. Rather, he attacks the judicial system including this Court and appears to concede the motion stating:

Due to the already shown propensity of this Court to deny "the spirit of the law", and the letter of the law, in regard to handling SRLs in favor of its own brand of "creatively" interpreting the law and pre-judging the controversy to be determined; whether, or not, the defendants' actions fit the crime, as determined by a jury, the plaintiff, due to the ever-increasing fragile nature of his health, will not burden this court with the need to publicly display, again, its unethical and amoral bias and prejudice against SRLs.

ECF 43-Response to Mtn to Dismiss at 4-5.

Further, he states:

With no hope for justice plaintiff will not contest the inevitably biased and prejudicial, forthcoming, ruling of this amoral court. Grant the defendants' motion with the knowledge that by your acts you have contributed to the destruction and, essentially, the murder by infliction of emotional distress of an innocent man and his family who only sought to be treated fairly by the judicial system.

ECF 45-Response to Mtn to ...


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.