ORDER

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's "Emergency Motion for a Stay of Action" (ECF No. 12) and "Emergency Motion to Relocate Plaintiff's Wife, Olive Harold to another Nursing Facility" (ECF No. 13), both filed on November 12, 2015. The Court must construe the motions liberally because Mr. Harold is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.

I. Background

Mr. Harold has filed a 190 page Amended Complaint asserting eighteen claims for relief against twenty-one defendants. (ECF No. 7). The allegations surround the fact that Plaintiff is not allowed to see his eighty-seven year old wife, who is currently a ward of the state and residing at a nursing and rehabilitation facility. Plaintiff also has complaints about his wife's care at the nursing and rehabilitation facility. On November 18, 2015, this Court ordered Mr. Harold to file his complaint on the court-approved form and to file an amended complaint that complies with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 14).

In his Motion to Stay, Mr. Harold requests this Court to stay an Order of a Denver Probate Judge which prevents him from seeing his wife. Specifically, Plaintiff requests this court to stay Defendant Judge Leith's Permanent Civil Protection Order In Re: Olive Harold, Denver Probate Court Case No. 2104-PR-31444, and to allow Mr. Harold to visit and communicate with his wife, Olive Harold. According to Plaintiff, at a September 9, 2015 hearing in Denver Probate Court, "Defendants falsely testified against Plaintiff that Plaintiff used food as a weapon to possibly harm and possibly kill his wife, Olive Harold, namely thin liquids, namely tea and water." (ECF No. 12 at 10).

In his Motion to Relocate his wife, Plaintiff requests this court to order his wife to be transferred to another nursing facility. Plaintiff admits that he requested similar relief in a motion filed with the Denver Probate Court. The Denver Probate Court denied his motion on September 30, 2015.

II. Analysis

This court is without jurisdiction to overturn decisions of the Denver Probate Court. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that lower federal courts are without subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims actually decided by a state court, or claims that are "inextricably intertwined" with a state court judgment. See Haas v. Stewart, No. 05-cv-02556-MSK-CBS, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69290, *8-11 (D. Colo. Sept. 15, 2006); Guttman v. Khalsa, 401 F.3d 1170, 1173 (10th Cir. 2005). The doctrine exists to prevent a party losing in state court from seeking what, in substance, would be appellate review of a state court decision in a United States District Court, based on the losing party's claim that the state court order itself violates the loser's federal rights. Id. In determining whether claims of constitutional violations are "inextricably intertwined" with the state court proceedings, the Court inquires whether the state court judgment caused, actually and proximately, the injury for which the Plaintiffs seek redress. Id. Interlocutory orders by a state court are subject to the same Rooker-Feldman protection as are final judgments of those courts. Haas v. Stewart, No. 05-cv-02556-MSK-CBS, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69290, at *10-11 (citing American Reliable Ins. Co. v. Stillwell, 336 F.3d 311, 319-20 (4th Cir. 2003); Pieper v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n, 336 F.3d 458, 462-63 (6th Cir. 2003)).

In this case, it is clear that Plaintiff is attempting to get this federal court to overturn decisions made by the Denver Probate Court. Such attempt is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and, therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Stay and Motion to Move will be denied. If Mr. Harold disagrees with the Denver Probate Court's decisions, he should appeal to the proper state court.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the "Emergency Motion for a Stay of Action" (ECF No. 12) and "Emergency Motion to Relocate Plaintiff's Wife, Olive Harold to another Nursing Facility" (ECF No. 13) are DENIED.