Timmons v. Zinn

Filing 12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS 2 REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on 4/18/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

OAKLAND DIVISION

8
9 DANNY TIMMONS,

Plaintiff,

10

vs.

11

Case No: C 14-0748 SBA
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS

12 DENNIS ZINN,

Defendant.

13
14
15

Plaintiff Danny Timmons brings the instant pro se action against Defendant Dennis

16

Zinn, alleging a claim under the Supremacy Clause. This matter is presently before the

17

Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). For the reasons that

18

follow, the motion is DENIED and the action is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

20

I.

21

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff previously commenced a civil action in the Sonoma County Superior Court

22

against Defendant. See Timmons v. Zinn, No. SCV-251817.1 In connection with that

23

action, Defendant allegedly attempted to serve Plaintiff with unspecified papers while he

24

(Plaintiff) was in the Philippines. In the instant action, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s

25

attempted service violates California law, a United States Department of State flyer and the

26
1

Though the substance of the state court action is not disclosed or apparent from the
papers filed in this case, the Sonoma County Superior Court website indicates that the case
28 remains pending.
27

1

Philippine Rules of Court. Dkt. 1 at 4. Plaintiff further alleges that Sonoma County

2

Superior Court Judge Arthur Wick, relying on Defendant’s “fraudulent” proof of service,

3

improperly imposed sanctions against him. Id. at 5. As relief, Plaintiff requests that the

4

Court direct the state court judge enter a judgment against Defendant. Id. at 6.

5

II.

DISCUSSION

6

A.

7

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), federal courts are authorized to review claims filed

STANDARD OF REVIEW

8

IFP prior to service and to dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that: (1) the

9

allegation of poverty is untrue; (2) the action is frivolous or malicious; (3) the action fails to

10

state a claim; or (4) the action seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

11

such relief. A pleading filed by a pro se plaintiff must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

12

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

13

To determine whether an IFP complaint passes muster under § 1915, the Court

14

applies the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil

15

Procedure 12(b)(6). See Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). A

16

complaint may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim if the plaintiff

17

fails to state a cognizable legal theory, or has not alleged sufficient facts to support a

18

cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

19

1990). To survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

20

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

21

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

22

The pleadings must “give the defendant fair notice of what ... the claim is and the grounds

23

upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (internal quotation marks

24

omitted).

25

B.

26

The Supremacy Clause provides that the “Constitution and the Laws of the United

27

States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

28

and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or the

ANALYSIS

-2-

1

Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. art VI, cl.2. “Under the

2

supremacy clause, federal law preempts state law when Congress expressly or impliedly

3

indicates an intention to displace state law, or when state law actually conflicts with federal

4

law.” Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. City of Long Beach, 951 F.2d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 1991).

5

Here, Plaintiff does not identify any state or other law that allegedly conflicts with

6

federal law. Rather, it appears that Plaintiff is complaining that the state court should not

7

have considered papers served on him in the Philippines on the ground that those papers

8

were not properly served. A federal court, however, has no jurisdiction to review state

9

court rulings. Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that

10

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts “from exercising subject matter

11

jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment.”). Even if the

12

Court had jurisdiction, the Younger abstention doctrine counsels federal courts to avoid

13

interfering with ongoing state court proceeding. See Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965,

14

973 (9th Cir. 2004).

15

As Plaintiff has not alleged any cognizable claims against Defendant, the case must

16

be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In view of the underlying basis of this

17

action, the Court finds that amendment to the pleadings would futile. Leave to amend is

18

therefore denied. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

19

III.

CONCLUSION

20

For the reasons stated above,

21

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the

22

Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the

23

Court certifies that any appeal from said dismissal would not be in good faith. The

24

dismissal of the action is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to pursue his claims in a paid

25

complaint. The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending matters.

26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 18, 2014

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

28
-3-