ORDER

FREDERICK J. MARTONE, District Judge.

On March 26, 1988, plaintiff, while intoxicated, drove at a high rate of speed down the wrong way of a street in Phoenix, collided with another car, and killed 3 people. On April 21, 1989, plaintiff entered a no contest plea to three counts of vehicular manslaughter in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County and was sentenced to serve concurrent 10-year prison terms on the first two counts and a 5-year consecutive term on the third count. After serving his sentence, plaintiff began filing state and federal lawsuits raising various challenges to his plea agreement and conviction. See, e.g., Gallegos v. Reinstein, No. CA-CV-11-0135 (Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2011) (denying plaintiff's second "motion for relief from order denying withdraw plea of guilt no contest" [sic]); Gallegos v. State of Arizona, No. CV-08-1877 (D. Ariz. Oct. 14, 2008). The case now before us is the latest in that line of cases.

We have before us plaintiff's motion to withdraw the guilty plea (doc. 4), motion for order of civil trial (doc. 5) and motion to amend his complaint (doc. 15), state defendants' response (doc. 16), and plaintiff's reply (doc. 19). We also have defendant Connell's motion to dismiss (doc. 6), plaintiff's response (doc. 12), and Connell's reply (doc. 13); and state defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 14), plaintiff's response (doc. 17), and state defendants' reply (doc. 18).

Plaintiff again asks to withdraw his 1989 no contest plea, complaining, among other things, that it was involuntary and coerced. He again names as defendants a Superior Court judge, two Superior Court commissioners, two probation officers, and a Maricopa County sheriff. It is difficult to determine from reading plaintiff's largely unintelligible complaint and briefs exactly what he is alleging. The nature of the allegations changes from one document to the next. It is clear, however, that plaintiff is once again challenging various state court rulings. He acknowledges that he "has made several requests to withdraw Plea in lower court but has been denied." Motion to Withdraw Plea at 2.

We are without authority to review final state court decisions. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, absent express statutory authority, only the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review final decisions of state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257; District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149 (1923); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, to the extent that plaintiff asks us to collaterally consider arguments previously dismissed in Gallegos v. State of Arizona, No. CV-08-1877 (D. Ariz. Oct. 14, 2008), his claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Plaintiff also seeks to amend his complaint, purportedly to correct the spelling of the defendants names and to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. He attaches a proposed amended complaint to his motion that fails to comply with LR Civ 15.1 because it does not indicate in what respect it differs from the original complaint. In addition to failing to comply with the local rules, however, plaintiff's proposed amendments continue to assert various challenges to final state court judgments, the review of which is not available in this court. Thus, the proposed amendment would be futile and the motion to amend is denied.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion to withdraw his guilty plea (doc. 4), DENYING plaintiff's motion for a civil trial (doc. 5), and DENYING plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint (doc. 15).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING defendant Connell's motion to dismiss (doc. 6), and GRANTING the state defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 14). The clerk shall enter final judgment.

We urge plaintiff to seek the advice of a lawyer before wasting his time and the court's resources on any further flawed filings. If he does not have a lawyer, he may wish to contact the Lawyer Referral Service of the Maricopa County Bar Association at 602-257-4434.