Ilaw v. Littler Mendelson, P.C. et al

Filing 5

ORDER ON 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 10/22/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

MIGUEL ILAW,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,

No. C 13-04851 JSW

v.

ORDER ON MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

LITTLER MENDELSON PC ET AL,
Defendant.
/

14
15

On October 18, 2013, Plaintiff Miguel Ilaw (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint and a motion

16

to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff also requests that the Court appoint counsel for him.

17

Courts must deny an in forma pauperis application under certain circumstances, including when

18

the underlying complaint sought to be filed is frivolous or when it fails to state a claim upon

19

which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

20

In contravention of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), Plaintiff has failed to file a

21

pleading setting forth the grounds upon which this Court has jurisdiction, “a short and plain

22

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ... and a demand for

23

judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” Although Plaintiff cites to Federal Rule of Civil

24

Procedure 60, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and makes reference to predicate acts, it is unclear to the

25

Court the legal theories on which Plaintiff seeks relief.

26

It also is not clear to the Court on what basis Plaintiff contends that this Court has

27

subject matter jurisdiction over his claim. Finally, many of the allegations in the Complaint

28

suggest Plaintiff is dissatisfied with various state court judgments. Federal district courts, as
courts of original jurisdiction, do not have subject matter jurisdiction to review errors allegedly

1

committed by state courts. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923) (“The

2

jurisdiction possessed by the District Courts is strictly original.”); D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman,

3

460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983) (“[A] United States District Court has no authority to review final

4

judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings.”). Instead, the proper court to obtain review

5

of a final state court decision is the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257;

6

Rooker, 263 U.S. at 416; Feldman, 460 U.S. at 476.

7

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies even when the state court judgment is not made

8

by the highest state court, Dubinka v. Judges of the Super. Ct., 23 F.3d 218, 221 (9th Cir. 1994);

9

Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 893 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986); and when a
plaintiff’s challenge to the state court’s actions involves federal constitutional issues. Feldman,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

460 U.S. at 483-84.

12

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal district court’s jurisdiction to hear a

13

particular constitutional challenge depends on whether the constitutional claim is “inextricably

14

intertwined” with the state court’s ruling in a state court action. Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 221

15

(quoting Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483-84 n.16). If the constitutional claim presented to a district

16

court is inextricably intertwined with the state court’s decision, then the district court essentially

17

is being called upon to review the state court decision. Id. The district court lacks subject

18

matter jurisdiction if the relief requested requires “‘a mere revision of the errors and

19

irregularities, or of the legality and correctness’ of the state court judgment, not the

20

‘investigation of a new case arising upon new facts.’” MacKay v. Pfeil, 827 F.2d 540, 545 (9th

21

Cir. 1987).

22

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is HEREBY DENIED

23

and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue

24

this action, he must file an amended complaint setting forth a cognizable legal claim and some

25

factual basis to support a claim with federal jurisdiction by November 22, 2013. Plaintiff may

26

file a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis upon filing an amended complaint.

27

Failure to file timely an amended complaint shall result in dismissal of this action without

28

prejudice.
2

1

The Court advises Plaintiff that a Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which contains helpful

2

information about proceeding without an attorney, is available through the Court’s website or in

3

the Clerk’s office. The Court also advises Plaintiff that he also may wish to seek assistance

4

from the Legal Help Center. Plaintiff may call the Legal Help Center at 415-782-8982 or sign

5

up on the 15th Floor of the Courthouse, Room 2796, for a free appointment with an attorney

6

who may be able to provide basic legal help, but not legal representation.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 22, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
MIGUEL ILAW,

Case Number: CV13-04851 JSW

6
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
v.
8
LITTLER MENDELSON PC ET AL et al,
9
Defendant.

/

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
12 District Court, Northern District of California.
13 That on October 22, 2013, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter
14 listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an
inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
15
16
17 Miguel Ilaw
354 London Street
18 San Francisco, CA 94112
19 Dated: October 22, 2013
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk