Grisham v. Eighth Judicial District Family Court et al

Filing 32

ORDER that the Court will construe the 10 Motion for Summary Judgment as a Motion to Dismiss. Defendants' 10 Motion to Dismiss is Granted. Plaintiff Michael Grisham's Complaint is Dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Plaintiff's 23 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is Denied as moot. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/16/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8

MICHAEL H. GRISHAM,

9

2:13-CV-2349 JCM (NJK)

Plaintiff(s),

10
11
12
13

v.
EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
FAMILY COURT OF CLARK
COUNTY NEVADA, JUDGE
VINCENT OCHOA,

14

Defendant(s).

15
16

ORDER

17

Presently before the court is a motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Eighth

18

Judicial District Court and Vincent Ochoa. (Doc. #10). Plaintiff Grisham filed an opposition (doc.

19

#20), and defendants filed a reply (doc. #30). While defendants characterize their motion as

20

requesting summary judgment, for reasons set forth below this court will construe it as a motion to

21

dismiss.

22

I. Background

23

Plaintiff Grisham filed the instant lawsuit in order to challenge a state court divorce ruling.

24

The divorce proceedings took place in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division (“the

25

family court”). The family court issued a decree of divorce to plaintiff and his ex-wife, Susie

26

Grisham, that incorporated a property settlement governing the distribution of the Grishams’

27

property. Grisham argues that the family court erred in several provisions of the divorce decree

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

including the property settlement. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court declined to alter the family

2

court’s ruling.

3

Grisham now seeks a declaratory judgment indicating that the state court rulings are void and

4

legally unenforceable. Grisham also seeks an injunction to block the sale of property as mandated

5

by the property settlement agreement.

6

II. Discussion

7

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine has arisen out of two Supreme Court cases from which its

8

name is derived. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court

9

of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). “Rooker-Feldman prohibits a federal district court

10

from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court

11

judgment.” Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Bianchi v.

12

Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003)).

13

If a plaintiff brings a de facto appeal from a state court judgment, Rooker-Feldman requires

14

that the district court dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In re Gruntz, 202 F.3d

15

1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). De facto appeals are claims raised in the federal court action

16

that are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s decision to the degree that if the federal

17

court adjudicated the claims it would require the district court to interpret the application of state law

18

or undercut the state court’s ruling. Bianchi, 334 F.3d at 898.

19

Plaintiff argues that his claims in this action are independent and separate from the state court

20

proceedings. However, plaintiff seeks a declaration stating that the family court’s “findings, decrees,

21

and orders [are] void and legally unenforceable.” Such an action is clearly barred by the Rooker-

22

Feldman doctrine. Therefore, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action, and

23

plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed.

24

Accordingly,

25

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants’ motion to

26

dismiss (doc. #10) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Plaintiff Michael Grisham’s complaint

27

is dismissed without prejudice. The clerk of the court shall enter judgment accordingly and close

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1
2
3
4

this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion for
leave to file amended complaint (doc. #23) is DENIED as moot.
DATED July 16, 2014.

5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-