Marion Marc Pryor v. Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. On January 26, 2017, Plaintiff, a state inmate, filed a civil rights complaint and requested leave to proceed without prepayment of filing fees. For the reasons discussed below, it appears the court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims under either the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or the Younger doctrine. The court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause on or before March 6, 2017, why this court should not recommend dismissal without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction. If Plaintiff fails to respond to this order to show cause by March 6, 2017, then the court may recommend dismissal of this action for lack of jurisdiction. (See Order for details.) (mp)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARION MARC PRYOR, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS’ OFFICE, 15 16 Defendant. 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. CV 17-0633-DSF (AGR) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 18 19 On January 26, 2017, Plaintiff, a state inmate, filed a civil rights complaint 20 and requested leave to proceed without prepayment of filing fees. For the 21 reasons discussed below, it appears the court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 22 claims under either the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or the Younger doctrine. 23 The court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause on or before March 6, 24 2017, why this court should not recommend dismissal without prejudice due to 25 lack of jurisdiction. 26 27 28 1 I. 2 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 3 The complaint and its exhibits do not provide a complete background for 4 this lawsuit. According to a hearing transcript, Plaintiff was sentenced to life 5 without the possibility of parole after a conviction in 1988 based on a murder 6 committed in June 1986 in Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 7 A915615. (Exh. H at 1-2, 7; Exh. J, Dkt. No. 1 at 51, 53.)1 On December 28, 8 1989, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment with sentence 9 modifications. (Case No. B036280.) 10 In May 2012, Plaintiff apparently sent a California Public Records Act 11 request to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. (Compl. at 2 & Exh. B.) 12 Plaintiff does not disclose what he requested. The response states that, to 13 receive the 2,865 pages, Plaintiff must pay the costs and fees pursuant to Cal. 14 Gov’t Code § 6253(b). Alternatively, the response states that Plaintiff may confer 15 with his counsel to determine whether he is entitled to post-conviction discovery 16 pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1054.9. 17 Plaintiff subsequently filed a request for post-conviction discovery pursuant 18 to Cal. Penal Code § 1054.9. (There is no indication Plaintiff pursued production 19 pursuant to his Public Records Act request.) On April 13, 2016, pursuant to 20 direction from the California Supreme Court, the California Court of Appeal issued 21 an alternative writ that required the Los Angeles County Superior Court in Case 22 No. A915615 to conduct a full hearing pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1054.9 and 23 Rubio v. Superior Court, 244 Cal. App. 4th 459 (2016), or else show cause why a 24 peremptory writ of mandate should not issue. (Exh. F.) 25 26 On July 13, 2016, the Superior Court conducted a hearing after appointing counsel for Plaintiff. At the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel read into the record the 27 28 1 All cited exhibits are attached to the complaint. Page citations to Dkt. No. 1 are to the page numbers assigned by the CM/ECF system in the header. 2 1 nine categories of items requested by Plaintiff. Counsel for Plaintiff and the 2 District Attorney’s Office discussed the disposition of each category. (Exh. H at 3 3-10.) The court set a further hearing on September 7, 2016 to address open 4 issues. (Id. at 14.) On September 7, 2016, the Superior Court issued an order, 5 but Plaintiff does not attach it. (Dkt. No. 1 at 57 n.4.) 6 According to the California Court of Appeal’s online docket in Case No. 7 B269919, the petition was dismissed as moot after receipt of a Superior Court 8 order dated September 28, 2016. (See www.appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov.) 9 On November 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a petition for review in the California 10 Supreme Court in Case No. S238192. The Court requested an answer. On 11 December 8, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel signed an acknowledgment of receipt of 12 evidentiary materials from the District Attorney’s file in the categories discussed 13 at the hearing. (Exh. I.) On December 13, 2016, the People filed an answer. On 14 December 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a reply. On January 11, 2017, the California 15 Supreme Court denied the petition for review. (Exh. A.) In the meantime, on August 22, 2016, Plaintiff apparently filed a motion for 16 17 protective order pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1054.7/1054.6 and a motion for 18 post-conviction DNA testing and appointment of an independent serologist expert 19 in Superior Court Case No. A915616. (Exh. K at 1-2.) On November 28, 2016, 20 the People served a response that opposed appointment of an independent 21 serologist expert on the grounds that the biological evidence had not been shown 22 to exist based on the July 12, 2016 hearing and requested an extension of time to 23 file an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for DNA testing. (Exh. K, Dkt. No. 1 at 58- 24 61.) 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff does not disclose the outcome, if any, of the motions he filed in Superior Court on August 22, 2016. Plaintiff files suit in this court requesting that the court order (1) production of 2,865 pages identified in response to his California Public Records Act request; 3 1 (2) production of 235 pages included in the District Attorney’s Estimate of Costs 2 in Case No. A915615 prior to the California Court of Appeal’s alternative writ 3 issued on April 13, 2016; (3) full accounting for all physical evidence destroyed or 4 disposed of in his underlying criminal case including orders for destruction; (4) full 5 access to blood swatches for DNA testing “without opposition”; and (5) 6 appointment of an independent forensic expert. (Compl. at 6.) 7 II. 8 THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE 9 “[U]nder . . . the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts are 10 precluded from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments.” 11 Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 463 (2006) (per curiam). “Stated simply, the 12 Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars suits ‘brought by state-court losers complaining of 13 injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court 14 proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those 15 judgments.’” Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 16 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indust. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)). The 17 doctrine applies when “the federal plaintiff . . . complain[s] of a legal injury caused 18 by a state court judgment, based on an allegedly erroneous legal ruling, in a case 19 in which the federal plaintiff was one of the litigants.” Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 20 1163 (9th Cir. 2003). 21 To the extent Plaintiff seeks discovery beyond that permitted by the state 22 court’s orders, Rooker-Feldman appears to bar jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s action. 23 See Miramontes v. Zellerbach, No. EDCV 13-0027-JFW (RNB), 2014 WL 793143 24 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (order accepting Report And Recommendation) (holding the 25 Rooker-Feldman doctrine jurisdictionally barred prisoner-plaintiff’s civil rights 26 action seeking post-conviction discovery that plaintiff unsuccessfully had sought 27 pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1054 in state courts); see also Henrichs v. Valley 28 4 1 View Development, 474 F.3d 609, 614 (9th Cir. 2007) (request to declare state 2 court judgment void “is squarely barred by Rooker-Feldman”). 3 III. 4 THE YOUNGER DOCTRINE 5 Exhibit K to Plaintiff’s complaint indicates that there are ongoing 6 proceedings in state court in connection with Plaintiff’s request for access to 7 blood swatches and appointment of an independent forensic expert. Younger 8 abstention is appropriate to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief from federal court that 9 would interfere with matters pending before the state courts. Younger v. Harris, 10 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Such ongoing state court proceedings would implicate 11 important state interests in post-conviction criminal proceedings. Moreover, 12 Plaintiff has an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims in state court. H.C. 13 v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000). 14 IV. 15 PUBLIC RECORDS ACT CLAIM 16 To the extent Plaintiff seeks production of documents identified in response 17 to his California Public Records Act request, the complaint provides no indication 18 that Plaintiff pursued his Public Records Act request after receiving the response 19 letter that requested payment for the copies and advised him of his option of 20 pursuing discovery through Cal. Penal Code § 1054.9. 21 In the absence of a cognizable federal claim or any facts supporting 22 diversity jurisdiction, a federal court generally declines to exercise supplemental 23 jurisdiction over a state law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers 24 v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 25 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). 26 V. 27 ORDER 28 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that on or before March 6, 2017, Plaintiff 5 1 shall show cause why this court should not recommend dismissal without 2 prejudice based on lack of jurisdiction. If Plaintiff fails to respond to this order 3 to show cause by March 6, 2017, then the court may recommend dismissal 4 of this action for lack of jurisdiction. 5 6 7 DATED: February 7, 2017 ALICIA G. ROSENBERG United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6

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?