Martin Reiner v. State of California Department of Industrial Relations et al
Filing
4
ORDER 1) TO SHOW CAUSE RE ROOKER-FELDMAN AND YOUNGER DOCTRINES; and 2) STAYING ACTION by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 11/16/2012. (See document for details). (ib)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
MARTIN REINER,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT )
OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., )
)
)
Defendants.
)
CASE NO. CV 12-08649 JST (RZ)
ORDER –
1.
TO SHOW CAUSE RE
ROOKER-FELDMAN and
YOUNGER DOCTRINES; and
2.
STAYING ACTION
17
The pro se plaintiff is a workers’ compensation (WC) defense attorney. He
18
alleges that one of the claims he was challenging in proceedings before the state Workers’
19
Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) proved to be fraudulent, or at least fraudulently
20
amplified, due to the dishonesty of the claimant’s lawyer. Plaintiff not only was
21
unsuccessful in proving the fraud but also was ordered to pay substantial sanctions.
22
Plaintiff unsuccessfully sought writs of review in the California Court of Appeal and
23
California Supreme Court. He now turns to this federal district court, asserting among
24
other things that the conduct for which he was sanctioned was free speech protected by the
25
First Amendment. But what he truly is doing is seeking federal review of an adverse state
26
ruling.
27
Litigants may not seek to appeal, or otherwise relitigate, state-court losses in
28
federal district courts. Federal jurisdiction over appeals from state courts lies exclusively
1
in the Supreme Court and is beyond the original jurisdiction of federal district courts.
2
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct.149, 68 L.Ed.2d 362 (1923).
3
This jurisdictional bar also excludes claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with those
4
a state court has already decided. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460
5
U.S. 462, 486-87, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). Taken together, these holdings
6
have come to be known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which today is understood to
7
mean that a party who loses in the state courts is barred from seeking what, in effect, would
8
be appellate review of the state judgment in a federal district court. Johnson v. De Grandy,
9
512 U.S. 997, 1005-06, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994). This rule applies even
10
when the challenge to the judgment involves federal constitutional issues. Dubinka v.
11
Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 221 (9th Cir. 1994).
12
In addition, federal courts may abstain from actions – even if they technically
13
do have jurisdiction – that implicate state legal proceedings that (1) are ongoing,
14
(2) involve important state interests, and (3) provide the plaintiff with an adequate
15
opportunity to litigate the very federal claims he seeks to litigate in federal court. This is
16
commonly called “Younger abstention.” See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746,
17
27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971); San Remo Hotel v. City & County of San Francisco, 145 F.3d
18
1095, 1103 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United
19
States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976).
20
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, by no later than 30
21
days from the filing date of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed without
22
prejudice pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and/or Younger abstention.
23
Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order on Defendants in conjunction with
24
service of process, or, if process already has been served, he shall serve a copy of the Order
25
on each already-served Defendant forthwith.
26
///
27
///
28
///
-2-
1
Pending resolution of this Order To Show Cause, the Court STAYS this
2
action. No Defendant served with process need file any first paper until the stay is vacated.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
DATED: October 17, 2012
6
7
8
RALPH ZAREFSKY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?