Jimenez v. Dyer et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for Lack of Jurisdiction signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 02/22/2012. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10

RICHARD JIMENEZ,

11

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00027-AWI-SMS

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION

v.

13
ZAC DYER, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15

(Doc. 1)
/

16
Plaintiff Richard Jimenez proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this action seeking a

17
18

court order for discovery in a state court action. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction over the

19

state court’s determination of this discovery issue, this case must be dismissed with prejudice.

20

I.

21

Factual Allegations
According to the facts alleged in the complaint, on March 11, 2003, Defendant Zac Dyer,

22

a Home Depot security asset specialist, detained Plaintiff in the parking lot of Defendant Home

23

Depot in Riverpark, Fresno, California, and accused him of having committed petty theft

24

(California Penal Code § 666). In the course of the arrest, Dyer tackled Plaintiff. Dyer and

25

Defendant Valdez assaulted Plaintiff, spraining Plaintiff’s neck and causing Plaintiff to defecate

26

in his pants. Defendant Casillas joined the assault, kicking Plaintiff in the stomach and hog tying

27

him. Defendants then filled a shopping cart with nine plants. When Fresno Police arrived,

28

Defendants reported that Plaintiff had attempted to steal the plants.
1

1

Plaintiff reports that his criminal case is currently pending before Judge Thorpe in

2

California Superior Court, Fresno County, where he is apparently represented by an attorney.

3

Plaintiff discloses that he has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial and awaits transfer

4

to a psychiatric facility.

5

III.

6

Plaintiff’s Claim
Plaintiff seeks this Court’s order requiring Home Depot to provide its video surveillance

7

tape, which he contends will prove that Defendants framed him on the petty theft charges. He

8

argues that Defendants have refused to release the security tape since it would assist Plaintiff in a

9

subsequent civil suit against them.

10

Because Plaintiff raised his claims before the state judge, who rejected them, Plaintiff’s

11

claims are in the nature of an appeal of the state court’s discovery order, based on alleged

12

procedural improprieties. A federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear an

13

appeal of a state court judgment or order (the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine). District of Columbia

14

Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413

15

(1923). See also Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540

16

U.S. 1213 (2004). In the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary, a state court is

17

presumed to be an adequate forum in which to raise federal claims. Pennzoil v. Texaco, Inc., 481

18

U.S. 1, 15 (1987). To challenge the order(s) or judgment(s) of the state court, Plaintiff must file

19

an appeal with the appellate division of the state court. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482-86; Rooker,

20

263 U.S. at 415-16. Ultimately, appellate jurisdiction of state court judgments rests in the

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

federal action would effectively reverse the state court’s decision or void its ruling. Fontana
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Plaintiff’s request for the security tape. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s federal complaint must be

5

dismissed.

6
7

This action is HEREBY DISMISSED for lack of federal jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated:
0m8i78

February 22, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3