IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION

KENNETH RAY PITTS PLAINTIFF ADC #085938 v. No: 2:24-cv-00021-BSM-PSH

GARY KERSTEIN, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff Kenneth Ray Pitts initiated this lawsuit by filing a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 7, 2024 (Doc. No. 2). His claims against Dr. Gary Kerstein, APN Tracy Bennett, and Charlotte Gardner are pending. See Doc. No. 20. Pitts has filed a “Motion for and Order Commencing an Action Service of Process Pleadings According of Rule 3, Rule (d) and Rule (e).” Doc. No. 28. In his prayer for relief, he discusses service of process and asks that the Court “enter judgment granting plaintiff motions, a declaration that the acts and omissions described herein violated plaintiff’s rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Id. at 2. His motion is DENIED. To the extent Pitts complains about service of process in this case, the defendants have been served and answered his complaint. See Doc. Nos. 8 & 19. Additionally, Pitts’ request for an order declaring that defendants violated his rights is premature. Whether or not Pitts’ rights have been violated will not be determined in this case until dispositive motions

are filed and decided, or a trial is held. This case is in its earliest stages, and the Court has not yet set deadlines for dispositive motions. Also before the Court is a “Motion for Petition for Permission to Appeal with the Circuit Clerk” filed by Pitts (Doc. No. 29). Pitts complains about a March 22, 2024 ruling denying class certification and references the state circuit court in Lee County, Arkansas.! This Court made no ruling on March 22, and Pitts has not sought class certification in this case. It is not clear if Pitts seeks to appeal a circuit court decision to this Court, or seeks some other relief. This Court does not generally review state court decisions. See Mosby v. Ligon, 418 F.3d 927, 931 (8th Cir. 2005) (“The Rooker—Feldman doctrine provides that, ‘with the exception of habeas corpus petitions, lower federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over challenges to state court judgments.’”) (quoting Ballinger v. Culotta, 322 F.3d 546, 548 (8th Cir. 2003)). Pitts’ motion is therefore DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of April, 2024.

onthe 1 Pitts” heading refers to the Circuit Court of Lee County, Arkansas. He includes an address at the end of his motion for a Division One Circuit Court in Helena-West Helena, Arkansas. Helena-West Helena is in Phillips County, not Lee County.