Macajou Saint-Preux

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
MACAJOU SAINT-PREUX,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 05-01486
(Chapter 7)
OPINION RE DISMISSING DEBTOR’S
VARIOUS MOTIONS AND OBJECTION TO CLAIM AND
RE DISMISSING NATIONSCREDIT’S CROSS-REQUESTS FOR RELIEF
The court addresses various papers filed by the debtor
seeking various relief from this court. As explained below,
this case is of a character that the relief sought will not
have an impact on the administration of the estate, and with
one minor exception the relief sought does not arise under the
Bankruptcy Code (title 11, U.S. Code), such that for the most
part the papers must be dismissed. The papers the debtor
filed are:
• “Motion to Change Venue From The Superior Court To
The United States Bankruptcy Court and To
Consolidate Therein All Matters In Order To
Safeguard All Rights Under Bankruptcy Laws And To
Discontinue The Occurrence of Legal Errors and Abuse
Due To The Dual and Contradictory Use of The Two-
Court System” (Docket Entry (“DE”) No. 80);
The opinion below is signed. Dated: January 29,
2006.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 05-01486 Doc 90 Filed 02/01/06 Entered 02/01/06 09:06:07 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 4

2
• “Objection to Proof of Claim Filed by Claimant:
NationsCredit” (DE No. 83);
• “Motion to Pay Into The Bankruptcy Court or the
General Federal District Court's Registry” (DE No.
85); and
• “Urgent Request for Hearing On A Motion To Vacate
Ruling of The DC Superior Court Granting
NationsCredit's Motion To Enforce Settlement
Agreement In Order To Prevent Contempt of Superior
Court” (DE No. 86).
This opinion also addresses cross-requests for relief filed by
NationsCredit Financial Services Corporation.
I
This is a chapter 7 liquidation case which is not a
reorganization chapter, and the chapter 7 trustee has filed a
Report of No Distribution, indicating that he “has concluded
that there are no assets to administer for the benefit of
creditors of this estate.” He has thus signaled that the
estate will be abandoned to the debtor at the close of the
case by operation of 11 U.S.C. § 554(c). The matters the
debtor has filed will thus have no impact on the
administration of the estate. Further, the matters do not
seek to enforce a right of the debtor arising under the
Bankruptcy Code (other than re-imposition of the automatic
stay which this court has already determined ought to be
lifted and which this court remains convinced should remain
Case 05-01486 Doc 90 Filed 02/01/06 Entered 02/01/06 09:06:07 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 4

1 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine holds that federal courts
other than the Supreme Court have no authority to review
decisions of state courts. District of Columbia Court of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d
206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44
S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).
3
lifted). Accordingly, other than with respect to the request
to re-impose the automatic stay, this court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over these matters as they do not fall
within the grants of jurisdiction set forth in 28 U.S.C. §
1334.
The debtor’s challenges to the actions of the Superior
Court can be raised in that court or by way of appeal to the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. It would be
inappropriate for this court to review the actions of the
Superior Court for two reasons. First, they have no impact on
the administration of this case as explained above. Second,
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, it would be inappropriate
for this court to review the Superior Court’s rulings as
though this court were an appellate court.1 The Superior
Court’s actions were taken only after this court lifted the
automatic stay and thus give rise to no claim under the
Bankruptcy Code.
Case 05-01486 Doc 90 Filed 02/01/06 Entered 02/01/06 09:06:07 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 4

4	O:\JUDGTEMP\Saint-Preux Opinion re Denying Motions Filed by Debtor.wpd
II
The requests of NationsCredit Financial Services
Corporation (contained in its opposition to DE No. 82) that
“[t]he Debtor should be sanctioned for his flagrant effort to
manipulate the judicial process” and that “the case should be
dismissed with prejudice and a discharge refused” must be
dismissed as not in compliance with F.R. Bankr. P. 9011
(requiring that motion for sanctions be filed separately from
any other document); F.R. Bankr. P. 2002 (requiring notice of
motion for dismissal); and F.R. Bankr. P. 7001 (requiring
complaint for denial of discharge).
III
An order follows.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: Mary Zinsner; debtor; chapter 7 trustee.
Case 05-01486 Doc 90 Filed 02/01/06 Entered 02/01/06 09:06:07 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 4