Robert L. Jarrett, Jr. v. Office of the California Attorney General et al

Filing 42

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder RE: Defendants' Motions to Dismiss 13 , 15 ; Defendant Parjack Ghaderi's Request for Joinder 18 ; and Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 30 . Because the grounds for defendants ' 1/12/2016 motion to dismiss and legal arguments therein appear equally applicable to all defendants, including Ghaderi, the request for joinder is GRANTED. The Court also GRANTS Ghaderi's request for judicial notice of various filings in a related state court action in which Robert Jarrett, Jr. was also a plaintiff. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of this Court's 2/3/2016 order is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff's failure to file an opposition to the instant motions to dismiss provides independent grounds for granting the motions. The Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant action, pursuant to the RookerFeldman doctrine. Accordingly, plaintiff's action is hereby DIS MISSED, in its entirety, without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified herein within 21 days. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action with prejudice. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-07223-CAS(JPRx)

Title

ROBERT L. JARRETT, JR. V. OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN ITS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

March 2, 2016

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine M. Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) - DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
(Dkts. 13 & 15, filed January 12, 2016 and January 21, 2016,
respectively)
DEFENDANT PARJACK GHADERI’S REQUEST FOR
JOINDER (Dkt. 18, filed January 21, 2016)
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Dkt. 30,
filed February 16, 2016)

The Court finds these motions appropriate for decision without oral argument. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing dates of March
7, 2016 and March 21, 2016 are vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under
submission.
I.

INTRODUCTION

On September 8, 2015, pro se plaintiff Robert L. Jarrett, Jr. (“plaintiff”) filed the
instant action against the following defendants: (1) Office of the California attorney
general in its official capacity; (2) California Department of Health Care Service in its
official capacity (“CDHC”); (3) Parjack Ghaderi in her official and individual capacities
as deputy County Counsel; (4) Kamala D. Harris in her official and individual capacities
as the California Attorney General; (5) Richard T. Waldow in his official supervisory and
individual capacities as Deputy Attorney General of California; (6) Jonathan E. Rich, in
his individual and official capacities as Deputy Attorney General of California (“Rich”);
(7) David Maxwell-Jolly in his individual and official capacities as undersecretary of the
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-07223-CAS(JPRx)

March 2, 2016

Title

ROBERT L. JARRETT, JR. V. OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN ITS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ET AL.

California Health and Human Services Agency (“Maxwell Jolly”), and (8) Toby Douglas,
in his individual and official capacities as director of the California Department of Heath
Care Services (collectively, “defendants”). See Dkt. 1 (Compl).
On December 11, 2015, following an intra-district transfer of the case, dkt. 6,
plaintiff lodged a proposed first amended complaint and simultaneously filed a motion
for leave to file the first amended complaint as a vexatious litigant, dkts. 7-8. The FAC
alleges the following claims: (1) “California Equitable Estoppel”; (2) “Joint Venture
Tortious Breach of Contract,” purportedly under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (3) violations of 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and (4) “Constitutionality of Agreement Between DHCS, Douglas,
Maxwell-Jolly, Harris, Waldow, Rich, and California Office of the Attorney General 28
U.S.C. § 2284.” See Dkt. 7 (FAC). In an order dated January 5, 2016, the Court granted
plaintiff’s motion to file the FAC as a vexatious litigant; accordingly, the first amended
complaint, while lodged on December 11, 2015, was formally filed on January 5, 2016.
Dkt. 10. On January 8, 2016, plaintiff filed a proof of service. Dkt. 12.
On January 12, 2016, all defendants besides Ghaderi filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff’s FAC. Dkt. 13, 15.1 Between January 27, 2016 and February 2, 2016, plaintiff

1

On January 21, 2016, defendant Parjack Ghaderi filed a separate motion to
dismiss, dkt. 15, a request for judicial notice, dkt. 17, and a request for joinder to the
remaining defendants’ motion to dismiss, dkt. 18. Because the grounds for defendants’
January 12, 2016 motion to dismiss and legal arguments therein appear equally applicable
to all defendants, including Ghaderi, the request for joinder is GRANTED. The Court
also GRANTS Ghaderi’s request for judicial notice of various filings in a related state
court action in which Robert Jarrett, Jr. was also a plaintiff. See Dkt. 17, Ex. A-K
(including filings and orders from the following actions: Jarrett v. Department of Health
Care Services Medi-Cal Eligibility Division, et al., No. BS 127162 (Cal. Super. Ct. Filed
June 30, 2010), dismissing appeal sub nom Jarrett v. Department of Health Services, et
al., No. B 236519 (Cal. App. Ct. Filed Oct. 7, 2010), Jarrett v. Superior Court of Los
Angeles, No. B 234510 (Cal. App. Ct. Filed July 20, 2011), Jarrett v. Superior Court of
Los Angeles, No. B 232264 (Cal. App. Ct. Filed Apr. 13, 2011)). These documents are
"generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction" and "can be accurately
and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-07223-CAS(JPRx)

March 2, 2016

Title

ROBERT L. JARRETT, JR. V. OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN ITS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ET AL.

filed numerous ex parte applications and noticed motions seeking to strike defendants’
motions to dismiss as untimely or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file
oppositions to said motions. See Dkts. 22, 23, 25, 26. In an order dated February 3,
2016, this Court denied plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ motions as untimely, and
further provided that plaintiff could file oppositions to said motions by February 16,
2016. Dkt. 27. On February 16, 2016, plaintiff filed both a motion for reconsideration of
the Court’s February 3, 2016 order, as well as a motion “motion for reassignment of
judge.”2 See Dkts. 31-32. On February 24, 2016, the Honorable S. James Otero denied
plaintiff’s motion for reassignment of judge. Dkt. 40.
Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes
as follows.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 201(b).
2

In his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff again argues that defendants’ motions
to dismiss should be stricken as untimely. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b), a court may reconsider a final judgment or any order based on: “(1) mistake,
surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) avoid
judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) extraordinary circumstances
which would justify relief.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS,
Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). According to plaintiff, the proof of service filed
with this Court on January 8, 2016, includes a sworn statement indicating that “the state
defendant’s [sic] were personally served on December 18, 2015 . . . and the county
defendants were served by email on December 29, 2015.” Dkt. 30 (Motion for
Reconsideration), at 4. In plaintiff’s view, “those dates started the clock for the
applicable 21 day limitation period[]” for defendants to file a responsive pleading, such
that their filings on January 12, 2016, and January 21, 2016, were untimely and should be
stricken. Id. at 10. Again, the Court disagrees, as plaintiff’s operative FAC was not
formally filed until January 5, 2016, following this Court’s order of the same date, dkt.
10, granting plaintiff’s motion for leave to file his FAC (which was lodged on December
11, 2015). Defendants thereafter filed their motions to dismiss within 21 days, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration of this Court’s February 3, 2016 order is hereby DENIED.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:15-cv-07223-CAS(JPRx)

Title

ROBERT L. JARRETT, JR. V. OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN ITS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ET AL.

II.

Date

‘O’

March 2, 2016

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s “Statement of Facts” contains thirty paragraphs of allegations that are
difficult to discern but appear related to a prior state court proceeding against defendants.
See FAC at ¶¶ 12-41. It appears that between 2010 to 2012, plaintiff pursued a lawsuit
against defendants CDHC and Maxwell-Jolly in state court for, inter alia, violations of
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and denial of Medi-Cal coverage. See Def’s Request for Judicial
Notice (“RJN”), Ex. A, B, C. Plaintiff begins his “Statement of Facts” by asserting that
“[f]ederal courts are bound to apply an exception to any State court judgment . . . where
the State court judgment violates any component of the due process clause in the [5th and
14th Amendments] of the United States Constitution.” FAC at ¶ 12. Plaintiff then lists
the previous state court case number in which he sued CDHD and Maxwell-Jolly for the
aforementioned violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. The factual allegations in the FAC
largely surround alleged conduct by defendants while the state court action and appeal
were still pending. See generally FAC. Plaintiff appears particularly concerned with
defendant Rich’s filing of a declaration on February 10, 2011 in relation to defendants’
opposition to a particular ex parte application filed by plaintiff in the state court
proceeding. Id. at ¶ 17. According to the complaint, “[p]laintiff questioned the veracity
of [defendant] Rich’s personal service concerning the opposition to the ex parte
application . . . and [Superior Court Judge Anne I.] Jones found service was sufficient.”
Id. at ¶ 18. Plaintiff appears to disagree with Judge Jones’s decision regarding the
February 10, 2011 declaration. See id. at ¶¶ 35, 40.
It appears that the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Medi-Cal claims were adjudicated and
dismissed by the Los Angles County Superior Court. Def’s RJN, Ex. B. Plaintiff’s
appeal was subsequently dismissed by the California Court of Appeal. See FAC at ¶ 41;
see also Dkt. 17, Ex. A-K.
III.

LEGAL STANDARD
A.

Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

A motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal
sufficiency of the claims asserted in a complaint. Under this Rule, a district court
properly dismisses a claim if “there is a ‘lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-07223-CAS(JPRx)

March 2, 2016

Title

ROBERT L. JARRETT, JR. V. OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN ITS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ET AL.

of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.’ ” Conservation Force v.
Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,
901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988)). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to
provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “[F]actual allegations must
be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id.
In considering a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept as true all
material allegations in the complaint, as well as all reasonable inferences to be drawn
from them. Pareto v. FDIC, 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1998). The complaint must be
read in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Sprewell v. Golden State
Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). However, “a court considering a motion to
dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than
conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can
provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009); see Moss v. United States Secret Service,
572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[F]or a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the
non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences from that content, must be
plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.”). Ultimately,
“[d]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience
and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Unless a court converts a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary
judgment, a court cannot consider material outside of the complaint (e.g., facts presented
in briefs, affidavits, or discovery materials). In re American Cont’l Corp./Lincoln Sav. &
Loan Sec. Litig., 102 F.3d 1524, 1537 (9th Cir. 1996), rev’d on other grounds sub nom
Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998). A court
may, however, consider exhibits submitted with or alleged in the complaint and matters
that may be judicially noticed pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. In re Silicon
Graphics Inc. Sec. Litig., 183 F.3d 970, 986 (9th Cir. 1999); see Lee v. City of Los
Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 5 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-07223-CAS(JPRx)

March 2, 2016

Title

ROBERT L. JARRETT, JR. V. OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN ITS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ET AL.

As a general rule, leave to amend a complaint which has been dismissed should be
freely granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, leave to amend may be denied when “the
court determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading
could not possibly cure the deficiency.” Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture
Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986).
IV.

DISCUSSION
A.

Plaintiff’s Failure to File an Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss

Under Local Rule 7-12, “[t]he failure to file any required document, or the failure
to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the
motion.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7–12. See also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th
Cir.1995) (per curiam) (affirming grant of an unopposed motion to dismiss under local
rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to oppose as consent to granting the motion);
Holt v. I.R.S., 231 Fed. App’x. 557, at *1 (9th Cir. 2007) (same; and rejecting a pro se
litigant’s contention that the district court should have warned her of the consequences of
failing to file an opposition). Accordingly, plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to the
instant motions to dismiss provides independent grounds for granting the motions.
B.

Application of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

Plaintiff opens his FAC by arguing that this Court must review the decisions of the
state court in his previous lawsuit against several of the defendants in this action. See
FAC at ¶ 12. Plaintiff does not appear to raise any new issue or claim that was not
previously addressed in the state court action; rather, plaintiff appears to seek a
determination from this Court regarding whether the dismissal of his previously-litigated
civil claims––and the subsequent affirmation on appeal—was proper.
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, state court decisions may not be reviewed by
federal district courts. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S.
462, 482–86 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415–16 (1923)). Only
the U.S. Supreme Court may reverse or modify state-court judgments. Id. “This rule
applies even when the state court judgment is not made by the highest state court, and
when the challenge to the state court action involves federal constitutional issues.”
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 6 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-07223-CAS(JPRx)

March 2, 2016

Title

ROBERT L. JARRETT, JR. V. OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN ITS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ET AL.

Dubinka v. Judges of Sup. Ct., 23 F.3d 218, 221 (9th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). The
doctrine applies “not only to claims that were actually raised before the state court, but
also to claims that are inextricably intertwined with state court determinations.” Kelley v.
Med–1 Solutions, LLC, 548 F.3d 600, 603 (7th Cir. 2008).
Claims are “inextricably intertwined” with a state court decision if “the
adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling or require the district
court to interpret the application of state laws or procedural rules . . . .” Reusser v.
Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Doe & Assocs. Law
Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d at 1030 (“Where the district court must hold that the state
court was wrong in order to find in favor of the plaintiff, the issues presented to both
courts are inextricably intertwined.”). Hence, to bring an action in this court, plaintiff
must assert an independent claim, and not merely seek a review of the state court
proceedings. See Kougasian v. TMSL, 359 F.3d 1136, 1140 (“If a federal plaintiff
asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief
from a state court judgment based on that decision, Rooker–Feldman bars subject matter
jurisdiction in federal district court.”). Accordingly, the Court must determine whether
this jurisdictional bar extends to each of plaintiff's claims here or whether plaintiff asserts
an independent claim not previously adjudicated by the state court.
Plaintiff’s first claim for “California Equitable Estoppel” references events that
occurred during the state court trial, but it is unclear what legal claim plaintiff is
attempting to assert. Specifically, plaintiff focuses on a declaration purportedly provided
by defendant Rich shortly before a hearing in the state court trial, which “precluded any
defense” by the plaintiff, as well as other allegations of improper procedural conduct in
that case. See FAC at ¶ 45. Plaintiff alleges that “[Superior Court] Judge Jones[’s]
findings are the equivalence [sic] of wrongfully denying the adequacy of California law,”
and that “[p]laintiff was forced to rely upon Judge Jones[’s] discriminatory finding . . . to
plaintiff’s ultimate detriment.” Id. at ¶¶ 48-50; see also id. at ¶ 18 (“Judge Jones found
service was sufficient . . . Judge Jones solicited comments by Ghaderi who agreed with
Judge Jones[’s] February 10, 2011 tentative ruling”); id. at ¶¶ 55-56. These assertions
indicate that plaintiff appears to move this Court to review the state court’s determination
regarding the February 2011 declaration filed in the state court proceeding. Such review
is precluded by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; accordingly, to the extent the Court can
discern plaintiff’s claim here, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the claim.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 7 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-07223-CAS(JPRx)

March 2, 2016

Title

ROBERT L. JARRETT, JR. V. OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN ITS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s second and third claims appear to have been previously adjudicated in
the state court proceedings. Specifically, plaintiff’s second claim for “Joint Venture
Breach of Contract” alleges plaintiff was improperly denied certain Medi-Cal benefits; it
appears plaintiff’s claims regarding his denial of Medi-Cal benefits were adjudicated by
the state court. See FAC at ¶ 59 (“Plaintiff applied . . . for federally funded Medi-Cal
benefits . . . that lead to the proceeding . . . [of] Jarrett v. DHCS et al., BS127162, a
contract proceeding, and the proceeding that le[d] to the vexatious litigant findings.”); see
also Def’s RJN, Ex. A & C. Similarly, Plaintiff’s third claim alleges violations of his
civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the state court fully adjudicated this claim. See Def’s
RJN, Ex. A & C. In the operative FAC in this case, plaintiff again appears to seek
reconsideration of the state court judge’s decisions in plaintiff’s state court action. See
FAC at ¶¶ 65 (“[Certain defendants] were not held accountable by Judge Jones for their
failure to have provided a declaration . . . and [as] such . . . plaintiff [was not made]
whole.”); 66 (“Plaintiff was completely vulnerable because . . . Judge Jones found it was
unnecessary for [certain defendants in the state court action] to have provided a [certain]
declaration . . . .”); 62 (“The proceeding culminated with a writ of ceriorari being denied
as one day late”). Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s second
and third claims.
With respect to allegations supporting plaintiff’s final claim––the
“Constitutionality of Agreement Between DHCS, Douglas, Maxwell-Jolly, Harris,
Waldow, Rich, and California Office of the Attorney General 28 U.S.C. § 2284”––it is
unclear what particular legal claim plaintiff is attempting to assert in these paragraphs.3
Plaintiff again cites to state court action “BC 127162” and references the February 2011
delcaration in the state court proceedings. See FAC at ¶¶ 81, 82 (challenging the “mode
of procedure in federal law or California law that should have been applied” in the state
court action). Again, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review prior decisions of the state
court. See Kougasian, 359 F.3d at 1143 (“In this case, Kougasian has asserted no legal

3

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2284, which plaintiff cites here, “[a] district court of three
judges shall be convened when otherwise required by Act of Congress, or when an action
is filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts or
the apportionment of any statewide legislative body.” It is unclear what relevance this
statute might have in the instant case.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 8 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:15-cv-07223-CAS(JPRx)

March 2, 2016

Title

ROBERT L. JARRETT, JR. V. OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN ITS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ET AL.

error by the state court. She is therefore not bringing a de facto appeal under
Rooker–Feldman. Because she is not bringing a forbidden de facto appeal, there are no
issues with which the issues in her federal claims are ‘inextricably intertwined’ within the
meaning of Rooker–Feldman.”) (emphasis added).
V.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant action, pursuant to the Rooker–Feldman doctrine.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s action is hereby DISMISSED, in its entirety, without prejudice.
Plaintiff may file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified
herein within twenty-one (21) days. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this
action with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 9 of 9