Rector v. Proietti et al

Filing 7

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS regarding Dismissal of Action re 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 4/23/2012. Matter referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 5/10/2012. (Figueroa, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
CHANNON W. RECTOR,
9
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
JUDGE DONALD J. PROIETTI, et al.,
13
14
15

Defendants.

) 1:12cv0480 AWI DLB
)
)
) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
) REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16
17

Plaintiff Channon W. Rector (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

18

the instant action to vacate a state court judgment on March 29, 2012. Doc. 1. He names Judge

19

Donald J. Proietti and the Merced County Superior Court as defendants. For the reasons

20

discussed below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s action be dismissed without leave to

21

amend.

22
23

DISCUSSION
A.

Screening Standard

24

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the

25

complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof

26

if the court determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim

27

upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

28

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state
1

1

a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be

2

cured by amendment.

3

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations

4

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

5

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick

6

v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor,

7

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

8

B.

9

Summary of Complaint
Plaintiff seeks to vacate judgments entered against him in Merced County Superior

10

Court. He claims that he asserted a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction in the underlying

11

actions, which the named plaintiff failed to overcome. He seeks compensation from Judge

12

Donald J. Proietti.

13

C.

Analysis
Preclusion

14

1.

15

Plaintiff’s claim seeking relief from any state court judgment is precluded by the Rooker-

16

Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 900-01 (9th Cir. 2003). The

17

Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars a federal district court “from exercising subject matter jurisdiction

18

over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment.” Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d

19

358, 363 (9th Cir. 2004), citing Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004).

20

As Plaintiff essentially seeks to appeal or to undo a state-court adverse judgment, his claim is

21

barred by Rooker-Feldman.
Judge Proietti

22

2.

23

Insofar as Plaintiff requests compensation from Judge Proietti based on the entry of

24

judgment or Plaintiff’s status as a judgment debtor, he may not do so. Judges are absolutely

25

immune from damages actions for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts.

26

Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409,

27

418 (1976). “As long as the judge’s ultimate acts are judicial actions taken within the court’s

28

subject matter jurisdiction, immunity applies.” Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir.
2

1

1986). Plaintiff’s claim regarding his adverse judgment is not sufficient to prevent the

2

application of judicial immunity.

3

3.

Right to Amend

4

Based on the facts alleged, Plaintiff cannot prevail his claim and it appears granting leave

5

to amend the complaint would be futile. Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a

6

claim is proper where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts that he has alleged

7

and that an opportunity to amend would be futile. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.

8

2000) (en banc). Accordingly, the Court recommends that the complaint be dismissed without

9

leave to amend for failure to state a claim.

10

CONCLUSION

11
12

For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed
without leave to amend.

13

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

14

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen

15

(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file

16

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

17

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections

18

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

19

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated:
3b142a

April 23, 2012

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3