Brainard v. Provost et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for Lack of Federal Jurisdiction and ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/13/2011. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

WILLIAM J. BRAINARD,

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00737-AWI-SMS

10
Plaintiff,
11
12

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR
LACK OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION
AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORM PAUPERIS

v.

13
ELEANOR PROVOST, et. al.,
14
(Docs. 1 and 2)
15

Defendants.
/

16
17

On March 29, 2011, Plaintiff William J. Brainard filed this action alleging claims under

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from the conduct of an eviction action against Plaintiff in California

19

Superior Court. Plaintiff names as Defendants Eleanor Provost, Judge of the Superior Court of

20

the State of California, County of Tuolomne; James Mele, Sacramento County Sheriff-Coroner;

21

Dan Crow, “agent for Sacramento County Sheriff”; Bryan and Carol Willmon, plaintiffs in the

22

eviction action (Tuolomne County Superior Court No. CVL55835); Michael D. Macomber,

23

attorney for Bryan and Carol Willmon; James A. Boscoe; Douglas C. Boyack; John M. Martin;

24

and 100 John Does.

25

Plaintiff’s constitutional claims are actually in the nature of an appeal from the state

26

court’s eviction order, based on alleged procedural improprieties. A federal district court lacks

27

subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a state court judgment (the Rooker-Feldman

28

Doctrine). District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v.
1

1

Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). See also Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th

2

Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1213 (2004). In the absence of unambiguous authority to the

3

contrary, a state court is presumed to be an adequate forum in which to raise federal claims.

4

Pennzoil v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987). To challenge the order(s) or judgment(s) of the

5

state court, Plaintiff must file an appeal with the appellate division of the state court. Feldman,

6

460 U.S. at 482-86; Rooker, 263 U.S. at 415-16. Ultimately, appellate jurisdiction of state court

7

judgments rests in the United States Supreme Court, not in the federal district court. 28 U.S.C. §

8

1257. A federal complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the claims

9

raised in the complaint are inextricably intertwined with the state court’s decisions so that

10

adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling or require the district court to

11

interpret the application of state laws or procedural rules. Bianchi, 334 F.3d at 898. Put another

12

way, a claim is inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment if the federal claim succeeds

13

only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it or if the relief requested

14

in the federal action would effectively reverse the state court’s decision or void its ruling.

15

Fontana Empire Center, LLC v. City of Fontana, 307 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir. 2002).

16

This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claimed violations of

17

constitutional and other federally protected rights in connection with the state court’s

18

adjudication of the eviction action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s federal complaint must be dismissed.

19

Plaintiff has also moved to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). Because this order

20
21

dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is moot.
This action is HEREBY DISMISSED for lack of federal jurisdiction.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated:
0m8i78

May 13, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2