Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Batten

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for lack of Federal Jurisdiction and Denying as Moot 2 Motion to Proceed IFP signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 07/11/2011. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01125-OWW-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
BRUCE R. BATTEN, et al.,
14
(Docs. 1 and 2)
15

Defendants.
/

16
17

On July 7, 2011, Defendant Bruce R. Batten filed this action removing a Fresno County

18

Superior Court unlawful detainer action (case No. 11CLCL00097) to this Court. Defendant has

19

failed to include the Superior Court complaint, instead alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

20

arising from the conduct of the foreclosure and eviction action against Plaintiff.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). See also Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003),

26

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

27

state court is presumed to be an adequate forum in which to raise federal claims. Pennzoil v.

28

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

1

Plaintiff must file an appeal with the appellate division of the state court. Feldman, 460 U.S. at

2

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

3

rests in the United States Supreme Court, not in the federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1257. A

4

federal complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the claims raised in

5

the complaint are inextricably intertwined with the state court’s decisions so that adjudication of

6

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

7

application of state laws or procedural rules. Bianchi, 334 F.3d at 898. Put another way, a claim

8

is inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment if the federal claim succeeds only to the

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16
17

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

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated:
July 11, 2011
emm0d6

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2