Ward v. People of the State of Calfornia

Filing 8

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on May 22, 2023. (mll, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TREVILLION WARD,
Plaintiff,

8

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALFORNIA,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

9
10

Case No. 23-cv-01599-JST

Defendant.

12
Plaintiff, an inmate at Valley State Prison, filed this pro se action, requesting that the Court

13
14

vacate a state court judgment. His complaint, ECF No. 1, is now before the Court for screening

15

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a

16

separate order.
DISCUSSION

17
18

A.

Standard of Review

19

The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma

20

pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to

21

dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

22

or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §

23

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v.

24

Qazi, 975 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020).

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

26

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not

27

necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the

28

grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned,

2

the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009).

3

A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

4

cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id.

5

B.

Complaint

6

Plaintiff requests that this Court vacate the state courts’ decisions related to his 2010

7

sentence and related restitution order. In his initial motion to vacate (ECF No. 1), Plaintiff alleges

8

that his 2010 sentence is unlawful because the related restitution order failed to consider his ability

9

to pay, in violation of California law, the state and federal constitutional prohibition on cruel and

10

unusual punishment and excessive fines, and his state and federal constitutional rights to due

11

process. Plaintiff argues that the unlawfulness of the restitution order renders his entire sentence

12

invalid. Plaintiff also alleges that the state courts erred in denying or disregarding his motions

13

regarding the invalid restitution order, i.e., when they denied his motion for modification of the

14

restitution order, failed to respond to his appeal from the judgment, and denied his motion to recall

15

the remittitur. Plaintiff also alleges that the state courts made numerous errors, clerical and

16

otherwise, when denying or disregarding his motions. Plaintiff requests that this Court “vacate

17

[the] unlawful lower court judgment.” It is unclear which lower court judgment Plaintiff refers to:

18

his 2010 sentence and related restitution order; or the July 22, 2022 state court order denying the

19

motion for modification of the restitution order; or the December 9, 2022 California Court of

20

Appeal remittitur; or the February 6, 2023 California Court of Appeal denial of his motion to

21

recall the remittitur; or all of these orders. Plaintiff also requests that the Court quash the state

22

court’s remittitur and order the state appellate court to render a decision on his motion to appeal

23

from judgment. See generally ECF No. 1 at 1-6, 10-22.

24

Plaintiff has since filed a separate pleading, which he identifies as an amendment to the

25

motion to vacate. ECF No. 5. According to the body of ECF No. 5, Plaintiff seeks to have ECF

26

No. 1 and ECF No. 5 considered together, as he incorporates ECF No. 1 into ECF No. 5 by

27

reference. Plaintiff may not amend a pleading piecemeal. An amended pleading completely

28

replaces prior pleadings, and renders the prior pleading without legal effect. See, e.g., Lacey v.
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012). ECF No. 5 therefore replaces ECF No. 1 and

2

waives all claims made in ECF No. 1 that were not repeated in ECF No. 5, which does not appear

3

to be Plaintiff’s intention. Also, ECF No. 5 fails to comply with N.D. Cal. L.R. 10-1 which

4

requires a party seeking to file an amended pleading to “reproduce the entire proposed pleading

5

[without] incorporat[ing] any part of a prior pleading by reference.” N.D. Cal. L.R. 10-1. Finally,

6

to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint or motion, the Court notes that

7

amendment would be futile because, as explained in detail below, this action is barred by the

8

Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The proposed amendments—details regarding an allegedly fraudulent

9

appeal transcript and attorney Soglin’s alleged but false representation of Plaintiff’s appeal—do

10

not rectify the deficiencies identified below. See Waldrip v. Hall, 548 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir.

11

2008) (in reviewing whether denial or grant of leave to amend was abuse of discretion, appellate

12

court “‘often consider[s] . . . bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of the

13

amendment, and whether the party has previously amended his pleadings.’” (quoting Bonin v.

14

Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995)).

15

This action is a de facto appeal of a state court decision and therefore barred by the

16

Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, “a state-court decision is not

17

reviewable by lower federal courts.” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 532 (2011). This doctrine

18

bars a federal district court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction “not only over an action

19

explicitly styled as a direct appeal, but also over the ‘de facto equivalent’ of such an appeal.”

20

Morrison v. Peterson, 809 F.3d 1059, 1069–70 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Cooper v. Ramos, 704

21

F.3d 772, 777 (9th Cir. 2012)). A “forbidden de facto appeal under Rooker-Feldman” arises

22

“when the plaintiff in federal district court complains of a legal wrong allegedly committed by the

23

state court, and seeks relief from the judgment of that court.” Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163

24

(9th Cir. 2003). Here, Plaintiff is arguing that the California state courts erred in denying or

25

disregarding his motions regarding the invalid restitution order (the motion for modification of the

26

restitution order, the appeal from the judgment, and the motion to recall the remittitur). In other

27

words, this action is a de facto appeal of the state courts’ decisions. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine

28

requires the Court to abstain from considering Plaintiff’s de facto appeals from the state court’s
3

1

orders. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman

2

doctrine.
CONCLUSION

3
4

For the foregoing reason, the Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice pursuant to the

5

Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against

6

Plaintiff, and close the case.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 22, 2023
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4