STEVEN RHODES, Chief Bankruptcy Judge
I.
On January 19, 2007, Gary Hann filed this adversary proceeding seeking recovery of money or property. Hann seeks the return of funds withdrawn from his IRA account in 2002 to cover the costs of his incarceration. Defendants State Treasurer, Michael A. Cox and Victoria A. Reardon have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Defendants Charles Schwab Co. and Stark Reagan have filed a separate motion to dismiss. The Court concludes that both motions should be granted.
In 2002, Hann was convicted of possession of child sexually abusive activity or material and using the internet to commit a crime against a minor. He was sentenced to 2 to 20 years in prison. At the time, Hann owned three IRA accounts with Charles Schwab Co. On May 23, 2003, Assistant Attorney General Victoria Reardon filed suit in Oakland County Circuit Court against Hann and Charles Schwab Co. pursuant to the State Correctional Reimbursement Act, MCL 800.401 et seq., requesting that 90% of Hann's assets be used to help reimburse the state for the costs of his incarceration. The State was awarded the requested relief pursuant to an order dated July 30, 2003. In August 2003, the State received $32,920 from Schwab. Hann filed a motion for reconsideration. The circuit court set aside the July 30, 2003 order and required the parties to file additional briefs. On February 18, 2004, the circuit court entered an order granting the State's requested relief. Hann has filed several additional appeals in the state court, all of which have been denied. He has also filed pleadings in federal court and has been unsuccessful in his attempts to obtain relief.
On October 12, 2005, Hann filed for chapter 7 relief. He listed his IRAs and the money paid to the State by Charles Schwab as exempt pursuant to § 522(b)(1) and (2).
On January 19, 2007, Hann filed this adversary proceeding to recover the funds Schwab paid to the State on Hann's behalf. In the complaint, Hann alleges that his debt to the Department of Corrections was discharged. He further alleges that the state court order pursuant to which the funds were paid is void.
On February 8, 2007, defendants Schwab and Stark Regan, P.C. filed a motion to dismiss. On March 19, 2007, defendants State Treasurer, Michael Cox and Victoria Reardon filed a motion to dismiss. Hann did not file responses to either motion to dismiss.
II.
In support of their motion to dismiss, defendants Schwab and Stark Regan argue: 1) the Court does not have jurisdiction over any dispute with Schwab because Hann agreed to arbitrate all claims; 2) the identical issues have already been adjudicated in several other courts, with an open case currently pending in the Eastern District of Michigan; and 3) any potential causes of action belong to the trustee.
In support of their motion to dismiss, defendants State Treasurer, Michael Cox and Victoria Reardon set forth a number of arguments, including: 1) they were not properly served; 2) the Court lacks jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; 3) the assets at issue were never part of the bankruptcy estate because they were administered prepetition; 4) the plaintiff lacks standing; 5) they are immune from suit under the 11th Amendment; 6) they are entitled to qualified immunity; and 7) the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel and laches apply.
III.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, derived from Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149 (1923), and Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303 (1983), states that a lower federal court may not hear an appeal of a case already litigated in a state court. Instead, a party who seeks to appeal a state court decision must litigate entirely through the state court judicial system, and only after these remedies are exhausted may the litigant seek review of the state court decision by appealing directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. Catz v. Chalker, 142 F.3d 279, 293 (6th Cir. 1998); see also Singleton v. Fifth Third Bank of Western Ohio (In re Singleton), 230 B.R. 533 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 1999). Hann's complaint asserts that the February 18, 2004, state court order is void because it was entered while the matter was removed to and under the jurisdiction of the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes this Court from considering such an assertion. Any such challenge regarding the state court judgment belongs before the state courts.
Indeed, the district court recently made the same determination. Hann filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan which included a count against the defendants here for unlawfully taking his IRA funds. The court dismissed that count after concluding that Hann's claims against the defendants were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. In the Report and Recommendation on the defendants' motion to dismiss, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal, stating that the injury of which Hann complains is the taking of his IRA funds by the state, which is directly traceable to the state court judgment and that therefore, Hann was trying to undo the state court judgment by coming to federal court. (See Hann v. State of Michigan, et al., 2:05-CV-71347, Report and Recommendation, March 2, 2007). The district court adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed Hann's claims as to the defendants who are the same defendants in this case. (See Hann v. State of Michigan, et al., Opinion and Order Affirming The Magistrate Judge's Reports and Recommendations, March 21, 2007).
Hann also alleges that the debt to the Department of Corrections was discharged. However, the filing of a bankruptcy petition does not operate to retroactively discharge a debt that was paid several years pre-petition.
Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. The defendants' remaining arguments in support of dismissal, therefore, need not be addressed.