Soto v. Yolo County Superior Court

Filing 7

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/9/2016 ORDERING plaintiff to complete the attached notice and show cause, within 30 days, why he should not be required to pay the court's filing fee before this action proceeds. In the alternative, plaintiff may opt to voluntary dismiss this action. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM SOTO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-2842 KJN P

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

YOLO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

18

§ 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This

19

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

20

Court records reflect that plaintiff has sustained three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C.

21

1915(g),and therefore must pay the court’s filing fee in full before he may proceed in this civil

22

rights action. See Soto v. Kolb, No. 09-1654 FCD CMK (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2009).1 In Kolb,

23

plaintiff was informed that he could not simply pay the filing fee after being denied in forma

24
1

25
26
27
28

In Kolb, the assigned magistrate judge found that plaintiff had filed at least three prior cases
that were dismissed for failure to state a claim. Id. (ECF No. 7 at 2), citing Soto v. California
Department of Corrections, No. CIV S-06-1476-LKK- DAD, Soto v. California Department of
Corrections, No. CIV S-07-1908-FCD-EFB, and Soto v. Jordan, No. CIV S-08-2687-GGH. On
November 24, 2009, in Kolb, the district court adopted the findings in full, and dismissed the
action without prejudice to plaintiff re-filing the action along with payment of the court’s filing
fee. Id.

1

pauperis status because he must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit. Kolb (ECF No.

2

7 at 3.) Plaintiff has not alleged any facts which suggest that he is under imminent danger of

3

serious physical injury.

4

Moreover, the instant complaint fails to state a cognizable civil rights claim. The court is

5

required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or

6

officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a

7

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or

8

malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary

9

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

10

Here, plaintiff names the Yolo County Superior Court as the only defendant, sets forth no

11

charging allegations or injury, and in his request for relief states simply, “case dismissed.” (ECF

12

No. 1 at 6.)

13

Because plaintiff included no specific factual allegations, the gravamen of his complaint is

14

unclear. However, to the extent that plaintiff challenges an order issued by the Yolo County

15

Superior Court, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. A federal district court does not have

16

jurisdiction to review errors in state court decisions in civil cases. Dist. of Columbia Court of

17

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415

18

(1923). “The district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction either to conduct a direct review of a

19

state court judgment or to scrutinize the state court’s application of various rules and procedures

20

pertaining to the state case.” Samuel v. Michaud, 980 F. Supp. 1381, 1411-12 (D. Idaho 1996),

21

aff’d, 129 F.3d 127 (9th Cir. 1997). See also Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291-92 (9th Cir.

22

1995) (finding no subject matter jurisdiction over section 1983 claim seeking, inter alia, implicit

23

reversal of state trial court action); MacKay v. Pfeil, 827 F.2d 540, 544-45 (9th Cir. 1987)

24

(attacking state court judgment because substantive defense improper under Rooker-Feldman).

25

That the federal district court action alleges the state court’s action was unconstitutional does not

26

change the rule. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486.

27
28

Absent additional factual allegations not present here, it does not appear that plaintiff can
amend his complaint to state a cognizable civil rights claim against the Yolo County Superior
2

1

Court. Moreover, in light of the order finding that plaintiff is barred under 28 § 1915(g), plaintiff

2

may choose to voluntarily dismiss this action rather than incur the court’s $400.00 filing fee,

3

particularly where his complaint is likely to be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall complete the attached notice

5

and show cause, within thirty days, why he should not be required to pay the court’s filing fee

6

before this action proceeds. In the alternative, plaintiff may opt to voluntarily dismiss this action.

7

Dated: December 9, 2016

8
9
soto2842.osc

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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM SOTO,

12
13
14

No. 2:16-cv-2842 KJN P

Plaintiff,
NOTICE OF RESPONSE TO COURT’S
ORDER

v.
YOLO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

Plaintiff hereby submits the following in compliance with the court's order
filed______________.

19

_____________

20

Or

21

_____________

Response &payment of court’s filing fee ($400.00)

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff opts to voluntarily dismiss this action.

DATED:
________________________________
Plaintiff