Mora et al v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP et al

Filing 5

ORDER That Case be Reassigned to District Court Judge; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint. Objections to R&R due by 8/17/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 8/3/2010. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2010)

Download PDF
Mora et al v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP et al Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION BERNABE MORA, v. Plaintiff, No. C10-02854 HRL ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED TO A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Re: Docket No. 2] *E-FILED 08-03-2010* United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP, LITTON CONSUMER AND CORPORATE SERVICING, LP, LITTON MORTGAGE SERVICING, GOLDMAN SACH BANK U.S.A, QUALITY LOAN, LITTON LOAN SERVICER, RICHARD MCMAHAN, CORALEE MCMAHAN, COUNTY OF MONTEREY SUPERIOR COURT, MONTEREY COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, MONTEREY COUNTY LEVYING OFFICER, ROY C. GUNTER III, ESQ.; KEVIN KEMP, ESQ.; DAVID SCOTT, ESQ.; DOES 1-100 inclusive, Defendants. / Presently before the court is plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. A court may authorize the commencement of a civil action in forma pauperis ("IFP") if the court is satisfied that the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filing fees necessary to pursue the action. 28 U.S.C 1915(a)(1). In evaluating such an application, the court should "gran[t] or den[y] IFP status based on the plaintiff's financial resources alone and then independently determin[e] whether to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it is frivolous." Franklin v. Murphy, 745 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 F.2d 1221, 1226-27 n.5 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff's application indicates that his assets and income are insufficient to enable him to prosecute this action. Accordingly, his application to proceed without the payment of the filing fee is granted. However, the court's grant of plaintiff's IFP application does not mean that he may continue to prosecute his complaint. A court may dismiss a case filed without the payment of the filing fee whenever it determines that the action "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). "If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." FED.R.CIV.P. 12(h)(3). Here, plaintiff's complaint arises out of a series state court actions concerning a dispute over title to certain real property. The record presented indicates that plaintiff apparently has suffered an adverse judgments at both the trial and appellate levels. Although plaintiff asserts that defendants have committed "constitutional, abuse under color of state law, judicial abuse or misconduct by superior court judges" (Complaint at 1-2), there are no facts alleged to support plaintiff's conclusion that any such abuses have occurred. Instead, plaintiff essentially seeks federal review of the state court matters. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, however, a federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the final determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT the Clerk of the Court shall reassign this case to a district court judge. The undersigned further RECOMMENDS that the newly-assigned judge dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 3, 2010 HOWARD R. LLOYD United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5:10-cv-02854-HRL Notice mailed to: Bernabe Mora PO Box 1480 Castroville, CA 95012 United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?