Chabrowski v. Cretan
Filing
34
ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 13 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; and Denying 28 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
DEREK CHABROWSKI,
9
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
v.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C-12-4443 EMC
CLIFFORD V. CRETAN,
12
Defendant.
___________________________________/
(Docket No. 13)
13
14
15
16
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Derek Chabrowski, representing himself pro se, brings this action against the
17
Honorable Clifford V. Cretan, individually and in his official capacity as a judge of the Superior
18
Court of California for San Mateo County, following Judge Cretan’s issuing of an injunction against
19
Plaintiff related to his alleged harassment of a former business associate, Courtney Lawson.
20
Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that the Court lacks
21
jurisdiction to review final state court judgments pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, that the
22
Younger doctrine prohibits the Court from intervening in ongoing state court proceedings, that Judge
23
Cretan is entitled to judicial immunity, and that the Eleventh Amendment bars claims against Judge
24
Cretan in his official capacity. Plaintiff now asserts that he does not seek to challenge the injunction
25
in this forum, as he is appealing the injunction in the ongoing state court proceeding. Rather,
26
Plaintiff brings suit against Judge Cretan for “deprivation of rights of due process” and “violations
27
of his civil rights . . . .” Pl.’s Opp’n 2.
28
1
2
3
For the reasons stated herein and as discussed at the hearing in this matter, the Court
GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
In addition, on the same day as the hearing on Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff filed
4
an application for preliminary injunction and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction
5
should not be issued. As the Court is dismissing Plaintiff’s entire complaint, it goes without saying
6
that Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, as required to obtain a preliminary
7
injunction. See Germon v. Times Mirror Co., 520 F.2d 786, 788 (9th Cir. 1975). Thus, the Court
8
DENIES Plaintiff’s application.
9
FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that, in approximately August 2011, Plaintiff, a resident of
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
II.
Maricopa County in Arizona, ceased a work relationship with Courtney Lawson. Complaint,
12
Docket No. 1, ¶¶ 1, 9. Following the end of this relationship, Ms. Lawson sought an injunction
13
against what she deemed to be Plaintiff’s harassing behavior, including a blog post written about
14
her. See id. ¶¶ 10, 16. While she first sought the injunction in Arizona state court, she subsequently
15
did so in California state court beginning in April 2012. Id. ¶¶ 8, 10. Defendant ultimately issued
16
an injunction on July 27, 2012 after failing to consider Plaintiff’s complete evidence and testimony,
17
demonstrating favoritism towards Ms. Lawson, failing to consider Plaintiff’s unclean hands defense,
18
failing to consider Ms. Lawson’s vindictive motive, failing to consider that Ms. Lawson lied in
19
court, and failing to consider Ms. Lawson’s unstable mental condition. Id. ¶¶ 12-13, 18. Plaintiff
20
filed a motion to vacate on July 30, 2012. Id. ¶ 14.
21
22
Plaintiff filed suit in this Court on August 23, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
violations of the First, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. ¶ 4.
23
24
25
26
III.
DISCUSSION
Judicial immunity, the Younger abstention doctrine, and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine each
serve to bar Plaintiff’s current suit.
First, as for judicial immunity, the doctrine of absolute immunity entitles certain individuals
27
to “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability . . . .” See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472
28
U.S. 511, 526 (1985). “Where not clearly lacking subject matter jurisdiction, a judge is entitled to
2
793 F.2d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 1986). Here, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant lacked jurisdiction to
3
issue an injunction against him, and therefore judicial immunity does not apply. See Pl.’s Opp’n at
4
3-4. However, Plaintiff does not argue how Defendant lacked jurisdiction and, from the face of the
5
complaint, it is not clear how he lacked jurisdiction, as California law clearly empowers judges to
6
issue injunctions prohibiting harassment. See id.; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 527.6 (authorizing
7
injunctive relief for harassment). Thus, Defendant is entitled to judicial immunity for his actions.
8
While judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting
9
in her judicial capacity (see Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984)), § 1983 itself provides
10
that, “in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s
11
For the Northern District of California
immunity even if there was no personal jurisdiction over the complaining party.” Ashelman v. Pope,
2
United States District Court
1
judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or
12
declaratory relief was unavailable.” See Washington v. Victim Compensation & Gov’t Claims Bd.,
13
No. C-09-1291 WHA, 2009 WL 1068888, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2009) (discussing relation
14
between Pulliam and § 1983).
15
Second, the Younger abstention doctrine prohibits federal courts from granting injunctive or
16
declaratory relief that would interfere with state civil proceedings where “state proceedings are (1)
17
ongoing, (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) provide the plaintiff an adequate opportunity
18
to litigate federal claims.” San Remo Hotel v. City & County of San Francisco, 145 F.3d 1095, 1103
19
(9th Cir. 1998). Here, Plaintiff seeks “injunctive relief commanding defendant to cease any legal
20
proceedings in State Court that are in violation of and protected under the United States
21
Constitution, First Amendment,” as well as “declaratory relief as this Court deems appropriate [and]
22
just.” Complaint ¶ 26; see also Appl. for Prelim. Inj., Docket No. 28, at 3 (requesting the Court
23
enjoin Defendant from “presiding, ruling or otherwise exercising judicial authority over State Cases
24
relating to the Plaintiff” and require Defendant “[i]ssu[e] an official recusal order.”). The
25
underlying state court proceeding is ongoing, it implicates the important state interest of prohibiting
26
harassment, and Plaintiff has the opportunity to assert the First Amendment in defense thereto. See
27
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 527.6(b)(1) (“[c]onstitutionally protected activity” not within definition of
28
harassing “course of conduct”); Rosicrucian Fellowship v. Rosicrucian Fellowship Nonsectarian
3
1
Church, 39 Cal. 2d 121, 145 (1952) (“an injunction will not be granted where the restraint interferes
2
with freedom of speech”). Thus, Plaintiff’s requested prospective relief is barred.
3
Third, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine limits prohibits this Court from exercising subject-
Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). This doctrine, which evolved from
6
two Supreme Court cases – Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of
7
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) – arises through a “negative inference
8
from 28 U.S.C. § 1257,” which, by authorizing the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a state
9
court judgment, “impliedly prohibits the lower federal courts from doing so.” Kougasian, 359 F.3d
10
at 1139. Here, the gist of Plaintiff’s claim is a challenge to Defendant’s issuance of injunctive relief
11
For the Northern District of California
matter jurisdiction over what is essentially a de facto appeal of a state court judgment. See
5
United States District Court
4
in a state court action. By bringing the matter before this Court, Plaintiff is essentially seeking an
12
appeal of that decision. Pursuant to Rooker-Feldman, this Court may not exercise subject-matter
13
jurisdiction over such a de facto appeal.
14
15
IV.
CONCLUSION
As judicial immunity, the Younger abstention doctrine, and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
16
serve to bar this suit, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss and DENIES Plaintiff’s
17
application for a preliminary injunction and order to show cause. Because any attempt to plead
18
around these doctrines would be futile, the dismissal is with prejudice. Although the Court indicated
19
at the hearing in this matter that it intended to dismiss this case without prejudice and with leave to
20
amend, upon further review it appears that any attempt to plead around these doctrines would be
21
futile. Thus, the dismissal is with prejudice and without leave to amend. The Clerk shall enter
22
judgment and close the file.
23
This order disposes of Docket No. 13.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated: February 25, 2013
26
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?