Marino v. Beccera et al

Filing 11

ORDER by Judge Breyer denying 3 motion for preliminary injunction and dismissing Complaint with leave to amend. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2017)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

DANIEL MARINO,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Case No. 17-cv-05118-CRB

v.
XAVIER BECCERA, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

Defendants.
Daniel Marino has filed a complaint challenging the results of proceedings in

14

California family court. Marino alleges that California’s Attorney General and a number

15

of other state actors violated his constitutional right to due process in various family-court

16

proceedings by affording him inadequate hearings, resulting in determinations regarding

17

custody and child support unfavorable to Marino. He also argues that the child-support

18

system itself is unconstitutional. Because the Court has granted Marino’s application to

19

proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. 10), it must evaluate whether the case should be dismissed

20

for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) provides that a complaint must contain “a

23

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

24

Dismissal may be based on either “the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of

25

sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

26

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A court “must presume all factual allegations of

27

the complaint to be true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving

28

party.” Usher v. City of L.A., 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). To survive dismissal, a

1

complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

2

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “Threadbare recitals of the

3

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

4

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Pro se filings are to be construed liberally.

5

Ortez v. Washington Cty., 88 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir. 1996).

6

Marino brings two claims. First, he seeks an injunction for violation of his

7

constitutional right to due process, alleging that the state forced him to pay child support,

8

deprived him of custody over his child, failed to follow the law, and engaged in various

9

other improprieties through the legal system. Compl. (dkt. 1) at 17–18. Next, Marino
claims violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 for the same

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

conduct, and seeks damages. Compl. at 19–21. Construing Marino’s complaint liberally,

12

the Court finds that he has also alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”)

13

and violations of the California Family Code.

14

To the extent that Marino challenges the state-court judicial proceedings as

15

improper applications of the law, his claim fails because this Court lacks subject matter

16

jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine instructs that federal

17

district courts may not hear appeals or de facto appeals from the judgments of state courts.

18

See Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 777 (9th Cir. 2012). “[W]hen the plaintiff in federal

19

district court complains of a legal wrong allegedly committed by the state court, and seeks

20

relief from the judgment of that court,” the action is a forbidden de facto appeal. Noel v.

21

Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163 (9th Cir. 2003).

22

Marino’s complaint seeks relief from state-court judgments based on improprieties

23

allegedly committed by the state courts. The relief he seeks would require this Court to

24

review the state-court judgments and essentially overturn them, a prerogative reserved for

25

the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 157. Rooker-Feldman bars such relief

26

notwithstanding that Marino brings constitutional due process claims. Allah v. Superior

27

Court, 871 F.2d 887, 890 – 91 (9th Cir. 1989). And Rooker-Feldman bars Marino’s claim

28

for damages in addition to his claim for an injunction. See Cooper, 704 F.3d at 779.
2