Simon v. Cumba

Filing 23

ORDER Dismissing Cases With Prejudice. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 3/6/2025. (anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PHILLIP W. SIMON,

Case No: 3:24-CV-01665-CAB-MSB
Case No. 3:25-CV-00109-CAB-MSB
Case No. 3:25-CV-00107-CAB-MSB

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

TANISHA BOSTIC, et al.,

ORDER DISMISSING CASES WITH
PREJUDICE

Defendants,

15
16
17

PHILLIP W. SIMON,

18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL D. WASHINGTON, et al.,
Defendants,

23
24
25
26
27
28

1
Case No: 3:24-CV-01665-CAB-MSB
Case No. 3:25-CV-00109-CAB-MSB
Case No. 3:25-CV-00107-CAB-MSB

1

PHILLIP W. SIMON,
Plaintiff,

2
3

v.

4

DEBORAH A. CUMBA,

5

Defendant,

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On March 6, 2025 this Court held a hearing on the three above-captioned cases to
discuss the Court’s tentative ruling and the pending motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff,

proceeding pro se, appeared telephonically. The Court explained its ruling on the record
and dismissed all three cases with prejudice. As explained to Plaintiff, the Court’s analysis
tracks with is prior orders.
First, as for 24-CV-01665, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies. The Court cannot
enter injunctive relief that will fundamentally alter the family court’s decision affecting his
benefits. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003) (“If a federal plaintiff asserts
as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court[] and seeks relief from a
state court judgment based on that decision, Rooker–Feldman bars subject matter
jurisdiction in federal district court.”).
Simon III, 25-CV-00107, involves an ongoing state child support proceeding.
Pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine, this Court’s interference with that proceeding
would amount to a de facto injunction. Plaintiff has failed to supply any facts indicating
that he cannot raise his federal claims in those proceedings. Abstention is appropriate in
this case. See Kitchens v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 1337, 1341–42 (9th Cir. 1987).
Moreover, all three cases involve claims against judicial officers and/or court
employees. Simon II, 25-CV-00109, is based on a “judicial collusion” theory against
various judicial officers and employees. [See Doc. No. 1 at 2–3.] Simon III involves a
2
Case No: 3:24-CV-01665-CAB-MSB
Case No. 3:25-CV-00109-CAB-MSB
Case No. 3:25-CV-00107-CAB-MSB

1

lawsuit against a judicial officer who presided over Plaintiff’s ongoing case. Judicial

2

immunity bars such claims. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en

3

banc) (“Judges and those performing judge-like functions are absolutely immune from

4

damage liability for acts performed in their official capacities.”) And contrary to Plaintiff’s

5

representations at the hearing, judicial immunity applies even when a judicial officer is

6

sued in their individual capacity. See Jackson v. United States, 896 F.2d 1370 (9th Cir.

7

1990).

8

The Court explained these (and additional) reasons for dismissal at the hearing.

9

Plaintiff’s above-captioned lawsuits are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

10

P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

11
12

It is SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: March 6, 2025

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Case No: 3:24-CV-01665-CAB-MSB
Case No. 3:25-CV-00109-CAB-MSB
Case No. 3:25-CV-00107-CAB-MSB