Ames v. Rogers et al

Filing 26

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 2/20/2013 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

BRYON AMES,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

No. 2:11-cv-1268 KJM JFM (PC)

vs.
MATTHEW ROGERS, et al.,
Defendants.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

17

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed March 15, 2012, this action was

18

dismissed without prejudice. By order filed September 7, 2012, the district court vacated the

19

March 15, 2012 order and judgment thereon dismissing this action without prejudice and referred

20

the matter back to the undersigned to screen plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

21

Thereafter, on January 4, 2013, this court issued an order to show cause directing

22

plaintiff to show cause in writing why the action should not be dismissed for the reasons set forth

23

in the order to show cause, as follows:

24
25
26

In his complaint, filed May 11, 2011, plaintiff alleges that he
was a defendant in two civil forfeiture actions filed in a California
state court in Tehama County. Plaintiff alleges a number of errors
and improprieties have occurred in connection with those
proceedings, including improper backdating of the forfeiture notice
1

1

and failure to respond to that notice by the district attorney’s office
in one case, and failure to serve, and falsification of, the forfeiture
notice in the other case. Plaintiff also alleges that he was not
served with a notice of default entered in one of the cases, that
various court personnel refused to process motions filed by
plaintiff, and that numerous motions have not been ruled on by the
state court . Plaintiff also alleges that he was been denied access to
legal material and other services while incarcerated in the Tehama
County Jail, resulting in unconstitutional interference with his right
to access the courts. Plaintiff alleges that the incidents have been
ongoing to the date of preparation of the complaint.1 Plaintiff
names thirty individual defendants as well as John and Jane Doe
defendants. Plaintiff seeks money damages, declaratory and
injunctive relief, including return of two separate sums of money,
plus interest.
On November 8, 2011, this court issued findings
and recommendations recommending dismissal of this action
without prejudice under the rule announced in Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37 (1971). The court found that the allegations of
plaintiff’s complaint showed that the state forfeiture proceedings
were ongoing at the time he filed this action and that Younger
required this court to abstain from the action. On March 15, 2012,
the district court adopted the findings and recommendations and
dismissed the action without prejudice. Judgment was entered on
the same day.
As noted above, petitioner subsequently filed a
motion for reconsideration of the March 15, 2012 order and
judgment. That motion was granted by the district court on the
basis of exhibits appended thereto which show that the forfeiture
proceedings were concluded before this action was filed. Those
same exhibits, which are docket sheets from the two state
proceedings at issue herein, appear to belie some of the allegations
of plaintiff’s complaint in key respects.2 For example, Exhibit 1
shows that in one of the cases plaintiff filed a claim opposing
forfeiture on April 8, 2010, approximately a month before the
petition for forfeiture was filed, that an “order of forfeiture after
stipulation of the parties” was entered on October 14, 2010, and
that thereafter plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. Ex. 1 to Motion for
Reconsideration, filed March 27, 2012. Plaintiff’s appeal was
subsequently dismissed for failure to comply with a rule of court.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

In spite of this allegation, plaintiff subsequently tendered evidence to the district court
showing that the forfeiture action was resolved in Tehama County and the appeal from that order
dismissed before the instant action was filed. See Order filed September 7, 2012, at 1.
2

This court “‘may take judicial notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and
without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at
issue.’” U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th
Cir. 1992) (quoting St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. FDIC, 605 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir.
1979)).
2

1

6

Id. Exhibit 2 shows that plaintiff filed a claim opposing forfeiture
in the other action on October 5, 2009, and filed other documents
in that action. On March 7, 2011, the docket notes a “ruling on
defendant’s request for ruling.”3 These documents give rise to an
inference that plaintiff had notice of the proceedings against him,
that he stipulated to the order of forfeiture in one case, and that the
court responded to his request for ruling in the other. If these
inferences are correct, it appears that plaintiff cannot state a
cognizable claim for violation of his federal constitutional right to
due process, nor can he state a claim for interference with his right
to access the courts.

7

After receiving an extension of time, plaintiff has filed a response to the order to

2
3
4
5

8

show cause. Therein, plaintiff, relying on a decision of a California Court of Appeal, apparently

9

contends that state law mandates that forfeiture cases be tried in conjunction with underlying

10

criminal proceedings. Plaintiff contends that did not happen in his first forfeiture proceeding.

11

Plaintiff also contends that an April 15, 2011 ruling by the state court directing the Clerk to reject

12

several documents tendered for filing. Petitioner contends that he was thus denied access to the

13

courts and appeal rights. Finally, petitioner states that he has terminal cancer and less than six

14

months to live.

15

Petitioner’s response to the order to show cause shows that by the instant action

16

he is challenging on several grounds two judgments of forfeiture entered against him in state

17

court proceedings. It is well-settled that “[t]he United States District Court, as a court of original

18

jurisdiction, has no authority to review the final determinations of a state court in judicial

19

proceedings.” Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1986). By this

20

action, plaintiff claims infirmities in the judgments and orders of state courts. This court has no

21

jurisdiction to review those decisions. This case must therefore be dismissed for lack of

22

jurisdiction.

23
24

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

25
26

3

The docket sheet for that action identifies plaintiff as the defendant in that action.
3

1

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

2

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

3

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

4

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

5

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that

6

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

7

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

8

DATED: February 20, 2013.

9
10
11
12
13

12
ames1268.56sec

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4