Cooney v. The State of California et al

Filing 17

ORDER Transferring Case to Southern District of California. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/11/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

DEBORAH COONEY,

9

Plaintiff,
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-13-0677 EMC

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

12

Defendants.
___________________________________/

13
14
15
16

I.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has filed a complaint against Defendants alleging various violations of her

17

constitutional rights in the course of an August 31, 2008 incident, and a subsequent state court

18

lawsuit. On April 23, 2013, this Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis,

19

and dismissed her claims against the State of California. Docket No. 11. The Court found that the

20

claims against the State of California were premised entirely on allegations of judicial misconduct in

21

the state court suit, and that they were thus barred by both judicial immunity and the Rooker-

22

Feldman doctrine. As all remaining defendants were based in the Southern District of California,

23

and as the facts giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in that district, the Court ordered Plaintiff to

24

show cause why this case should not be transferred to that district.

25

After requesting and receiving a one month extension of time, Plaintiff filed her response to

26

this Court’s order on June 5, 2013. Docket No. 16. Plaintiff does not dispute that venue is not

27

proper in this district under the currently operative complaint, but states that she intends to amend

28

her complaint to add California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye as a defendant.

1

With such an amendment, she argues, venue will be proper in this District because Chief Justice

2

Cantil-Sakauye resides in this District, and her alleged acts of misconduct occurred here. Plaintiff

3

has not as yet filed any proposed amendment.

4

Plaintiff’s proposed amendment, however, seeks to add a defendant who will almost

Court previously explained, judicial immunity provides absolute immunity to a judicial officer, in

7

exercising the authority vested in her, because the judicial officer “[should] be free to act upon h[er]

8

own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to h[er]self.” Stump v. Sparkman,

9

435 U.S. 349, 355 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Forrester v. White, 484 U.S.

10

219, 226-27 (1988) (summarizing the rationales for judicial immunity). “[J]udicial immunity is not

11
For the Northern District of California

certainly be dismissed for the same reasons this Court dismissed the State of California. As this

6

United States District Court

5

overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice.” See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991).

12

Plaintiff argues that judicial immunity does not apply to ministerial, administrative, or other non-

13

discretionary acts, or to acts where the judge had neither jurisdiction nor authority to act. She

14

alleges no facts, however, indicating that Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye’s actions fall into one of

15

these categories. Indeed, in the complaint, the only allegations relating to Chief Justice Cantil-

16

Sakauye are that she denied Plaintiff’s petition for review of the appellate court’s decision in the

17

state court matter on June 13, 2012. Compl. at 12. While it is true that judicial immunity does not

18

apply when a judge acts “in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction,’” the Chief Justice’s denial of a

19

petition for review is not such a situation. Sadoski v. Mosley, 435 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2006)

20

(quoting Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978)).

21

Plaintiff also argues that she her claims against Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye are not barred

22

by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because that doctrine “is all but moribund,” and that “[i]t has been

23

steadily chipped away by recent Court decisions,” though she cites no cases in support of her

24

argument. Docket No. 16 at 2. As the Ninth Circuit has just recently reaffirmed, “[t]he Rooker-

25

Feldman doctrine forbids a losing party in state court from filing suit in federal district court

26

complaining of an injury caused by a state court judgment, and seeking federal court review and

27

rejection of that judgment.” Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 2013). As Plaintiff’s

28

2

1

claims are based on allegations of impropriety in the state court proceedings, any claim against

2

Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye are barred by Rooker-Feldman.

3

Thus, the amended complaint Plaintiff states she intends to file would seek only to add a

4

defendant against whom all claims are almost certainly barred by judicial immunity and the Rooker-

5

Feldman doctrine. The possibility of such a futile amendment is not sufficient to render venue

6

proper in this jurisdiction, as the claims against Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye would likely be

7

dismissed for the reasons discussed above.

8

II.

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that venue is not proper in this District, and
hereby orders this case transferred to the Southern District of California.
This order disposes of Docket No. 11.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: June 11, 2013

16

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3