United States District Court, D. New Mexico
Kruskal Arroyo Seco, New Mexico Plaintiff pro se
Martinez Diana Martinez Defendants pro se
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN
MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's
Request to Reopen Case Such That Kruskal Can Appeal the Final
Judgment, filed May 5, 2017 (Doc. 9)(“Motion to
Reopen”). Plaintiff Kerry Kruskal appears pro se. For
the reasons below, the Court will deny Kruskal's Motion
September 29, 2016, Kruskal filed suit in federal court
requesting relief from a state court decision. See
Notice of Appeal -- Complaint to Send NM Supreme Court
Decision Back to State at 1-3 (Doc.
1)(“Complaint”). In 2015, the Eighth District
Court, County of Taos, State of New Mexico, ruled on a
contract dispute involving Kruskal, but the state court clerk
did not send a copy of the ruling to the parties.
See Complaint at 1. Kruskal appealed, but
“[t]he Appellate Court refused to look into the issues
raised in the appeal, stating that Kruskal had missed the 30
day deadline.” Complaint at 2. “The Supreme Court
upheld the Appellate decision.” Complaint at 2.
Consequently, Kruskal requested “that this Federal
Court reverse the opinion of the Supreme [C]ourt, and send
the appeal back down to be reviewed on the merits.”
Complaint at 2. Kruskal also filed a CM/ECF Pro Se
Notification Form showing that he elected to receive
notification via email. See CM/ECF Pro Se
Notification Form at 1, filed September 29, 2016 (Doc.
3)(“Pro Se Form”).
Court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction stating:
Kruskal, who lost in state court by virtue of a decision
which the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico entered
before the commencement of this case, asks this Court to
review the correctness of the Supreme Court of the State of
New Mexico's decision. See Complaint at 2. The
Court does not have jurisdiction to review the Supreme Court
of the State of New Mexico's decision. See Valdez v.
Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 867 F.Supp.2d ,
1167-68 [(D.N.M. 2012)(Browning, J.)](stating that the
Rooker-Feldman  doctrine requires: “(i) a
state-court loser; (ii) who is asking a federal district
court; (iii) to review the correctness of a judgment rendered
by a state court; and (iv) which judgment was rendered before
the commencement of the federal proceeding”). Kruskal
does not seek any other relief, and does not allege any facts
showing that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction.
See United States ex rel. General Rock & Sand Corp.
v. Chuska Dev. Corp., 55 F.3d , 1495 [(10th Cir.
1995)](stating that the party seeking the exercise of
jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the validity of
that jurisdiction and “must allege in his pleading the
facts essential to show jurisdiction”).
Opinion and Order of Dismissal at 7-8, 2016 WL 7246108, at
*4, filed November 30, 2016 (Doc. 7)(“Dismissal
Order”). The Court entered its Final Judgment on
November 30, 2016. See Final Judgment at 1, filed
November 30, 2016 (Doc. 8)(“Final Judgment”). On
November 30, 2017, the Court electronically emailed Notices
of Electronic Filing of the Dismissal Order and the Final
Judgment to the email address Kruskal provided in his CM/ECF
Pro Se Notification Form. See Pro Se Form at 1.
Kruskal did not file a notice of appeal.
now asks the Court to reopen this “case such that
Kruskal can appeal.” Motion to Reopen at 2. Kruskal
appears to make his request to reopen the case under rule 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Kruskal states:
“The record shows that Kruskal was sent two emails on
11/30/2016. They did not arrive.” Motion to Reopen
¶ 3, at 1.
appeal permitted by law as of right from a district court to
a court of appeals may be taken only by filing a notice of
appeal with the district clerk.” Fed. R. App. P.
3(a)(1). In a civil case, “the notice of appeal . . .
must be filed with the district court clerk within 30 days
after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.”
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Assuming that certain conditions
are met, “[t]he district court may reopen the time to
file an appeal for a period of 14 days after the date when
its order to reopen is entered.” Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(6). In order to reopen the time to appeal, the Court
(A) . . . that the moving party did not receive notice under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry of the
judgment or order sought to be appealed within 21 days after
(B) the motion is filed within 180 days after the judgment or
order is entered or within 14 days after the moving party
receives notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d)