Isbell v. State of Oklahoma, Department of Human Services et al

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Judge William Alsup. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
SARAH ISBELL,

No. C 18-00269 WHA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

11
v.
12
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al.,
13
Defendant.
14
15
16
17
18

INTRODUCTION
In this civil rights action, Magistrate Judge Robert Illman has filed a Report and
Recommendation regarding dismissal of the complaint. For the reasons below, the Report and
Recommendation is ADOPTED and the complaint is DISMISSED.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

/

STATEMENT
On January 11, pro se plaintiff Sarah Isbell brought this action against (1) the State of
Oklahoma and its Department of Human Services, (2) Jim Hutchinson, the Director of the
Oklahoma Department of Health and Human Services, in his official and individual capacities, (3)
the State of California and its Department of Human Services, and (4) Alisha Griffin, the Director
of the California Department of Child Support Services, in her official and individual capacities.
Plaintiff seeks relief under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Dkt. No. 1).
On March 13, after reviewing the complaint, Magistrate Judge Robert Illman filed a Report
and Recommendation. Judge Illman found the complaint challenged an Oklahoma state court
judgment ordering plaintiff to pay monthly child support and further challenged subsequent actions

1

taken by defendants to enforce the judgment. Judge Illman also determined it was unclear whether

2

plaintiff sought to pursue claims against defendants separate and apart from her de facto appeal

3

from the state court judgment and accordingly recommended dismissing the action for lack of

4

jurisdiction with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed her objections to the Report and Recommendation

5

on April 5 (Dkt. Nos. 17, 27).

6
7

ANALYSIS
Where a party objects to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] judge of the [district] court

8

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] to

9

which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff objects on two grounds.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff first argues that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is inapplicable to this action because

11

the Oklahoma child support order is not a “final judgment.” Not so. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine

12

applies not just to final state court orders and judgments, but also to interlocutory orders and

13

non-final judgments issued by a state court. Doe & Assoc. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d

14

1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001). “Because district courts lack power to hear direct appeals from state

15

court decisions, they must decline jurisdiction whenever they are ‘in essence called upon to review

16

the state court decision.’” Ibid. (quoting D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 n.16

17

(1983)).

18

Plaintiff next contends that even if the support order is subject to Rooker-Feldman, the “vast

19

majority” of her complaint relates to enforcement actions taken by defendants after issuance of the

20

Oklahoma court’s judgment. To the extent her claims relate to actions taken prior to issuance of the

21

judgment, plaintiff states that her claims are directed at defendants’ policies, practices and decisions

22

“which impair her Constitutional rights, not as a de facto appeal of the state court support order.”

23

Despite this objection, plaintiff seeks leave to “withdraw[ ] any statement” in her complaint “which

24

could be read to call on this court to conduct a direct appellate review of legal errors by the state

25

court” and to amend her complaint so as to “restate her claims to more specifically clarify facts

26

supporting her claims” (Dkt. No. 27 at 4, 20).

27
28

This order agrees with the Report and Recommendation’s finding that, as currently pled, the
complaint is unclear as to whether plaintiff is pursuing claims apart from the attempted de facto
2

1

appeal. “A federal action constitutes such a de facto appeal where ‘claims raised in the federal

2

court action are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state court’s decision such that the adjudication

3

of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling or require the district court to interpret the

4

application of state laws or procedural rules.’” Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 859

5

(9th Cir. 2008). This order also agrees that plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the

6

complaint in order to clarify her claims.

7
8
9

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. The complaint
is accordingly DISMISSED. By MAY 11, plaintiff may file an amendment complaint raising any

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

claims which are not inextricably intertwined with the Oklahoma court’s judgment and not

11

otherwise subject to dismissal.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: April 12, 2018.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3