Tyra v. Vanburen

Filing 15

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendations in full re 7 Report and Recommendation. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED based on the foregoing that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation be adopted in full and that this case and any underlying pending motions herein are dismissed. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 9/19/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LOE)

Case 2:21-cv-01289-RFB-BNW Document 15 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

DANIELLE TYRA,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:21-cv-1289-RFB-BNW
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
JASON PAUL VANBUREN,

11

Defendant.

12
13

Before the Court, for consideration, are (1) the Report and Recommendation of the

14

Honorable Brenda Wexler, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on September 13, 2021 (ECF

15

No. 7), (2) an Emergency Ex-Parte Motion for “Custody of Child” filed by Plaintiff Danielle Tyra,

16

(ECF No. 8), and (3) a second Emergency Ex-Parte Motion for “an order to stop son from being

17

abducted,” by Plaintiff Danielle Tyra (ECF No. 13).

18

A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

19

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific

20

written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §

21

636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed the district court is

22

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

23

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local

24

Rule IB 3-2(b).

25

Here, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court dismiss the complaint with

26

Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for failure to establish subject

27

matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff noticed her objection to the Magistrate Court Judge’s report within

28

the required deadline. As Plaintiff proceeds pro se, this Court will broadly construe her objection
-1-

Case 2:21-cv-01289-RFB-BNW Document 15 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 3

1

to apply to all legal conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, this Court will

2

review the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation de novo.

3

Where a Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a given legal action, the complaint

4

must be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Subject matter jurisdiction is the power to hear and

5

review a given type of case or particular relief sought. See Jurisdiction, Black’s Law Dictionary

6

(11th Ed., 2019). Federal district courts, as courts of original jurisdiction, do not have subject

7

matter jurisdiction to review errors allegedly committed by state courts. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust

8

Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923) (“The jurisdiction possessed by the District Courts is strictly

9

original.”); D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983) (“[A] United States District Court

10

has no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings.”). The United

11

States Supreme Court is vested with the sole federal authority to review state-court judgments. 28

12

U.S.C. § 1257. The Rooker–Feldman doctrine applies even when the state court judgment is not

13

made by the highest state court, see Dubinka v. Judges of the Super. Ct., 23 F.3d 218, 221 (9th

14

Cir. 1994); Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 893 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986), and when

15

a plaintiff’s challenge to the state court’s actions involves federal constitutional issues. Feldman,

16

460 U.S. at 483–84.

17

If a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state

18

court, or a more general constitutional challenge that is "inextricably intertwined" with the

19

allegedly erroneous decision, then Rooker-Feldman bars the federal district court from having

20

subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003). A

21

claim is “inextricably intertwined” with a state court's decision when “adjudication of the federal

22

claims would undercut the state ruling or require the district court to interpret the application of

23

state laws or procedural rules.” Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003).

24

The Magistrate Judge found that the Rooker Feldman doctrine applies to this case because

25

Plaintiff (1) lost her State Court case, (2) complains of injuries caused by the State Court ruling,

26

(3) the State Court ruling occurred before commencement of any Federal Court action, and (4)

27

Plaintiff invites the Federal Court to review the State Court’s ruling that caused her harm.

28

Plaintiff’s Complaint that the matter be dismissed with prejudice. As any Federal Court under
-2-

Case 2:21-cv-01289-RFB-BNW Document 15 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 3

1

these circumstances does not have the subject matter jurisdiction to review and overrule the

2

decisions of a state court judge, except for the Supreme Court, the Magistrate Judge recommended

3

that the case be dismissed “with prejudice.” ECF No. 7.

4

This Court agrees. On August 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed a § 1983 action challenging

5

procedural and substantive decisions made by a Nevada State Family Court Judge (“Judge

6

Ritchie”) who is a Nevada State District Court Judge for the Eighth Judicial District (Family

7

Court). ECF No. 4. The remedy she seeks in her federal court case is to overturn the decision,

8

authored by Judge Ritchie. ECF No. 4. As evidenced by her submissions to the Court, Plaintiff

9

strongly disagrees with the Nevada State District Court’s findings and ultimate ruling and begs

10

this Court to overrule the State Court ruling (as evidenced, in part, by subsequent motions for

11

“child custody”). ECF Nos. 4, 8. Plaintiff’s constitutional challenge essentially asks this Court to

12

undercut the state court ruling, as in Bianchi, in violation of the Rooker Feldman doctrine. Bianchi,

13

334 F.3d at 898 (noting that “Rooker-Feldman is a powerful doctrine that prevents federal courts

14

from second-guessing state court decisions by barring the lower federal courts from hearing de

15

facto appeals from state-court judgments . . .”).

16

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED based on the foregoing that the Magistrate Judge’s

17

Recommendation be adopted in full and that this case and any underlying pending motions herein

18

are dismissed.

19
20

DATED: September 19, 2022

21

__________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-