Feeley v. Earl et al

Filing 11

ORDER: Adopting as modified the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 7 . The Court Grants Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 1 , Denies as Moot Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel 3 , and sua sponte Dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Signed on 7/25/17 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (gm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

AARON SCOTT FEELEY,
Plaintiff,

3:17-cv-00649-PK
ORDER

v.
ALLAN R. EARL, et al.,
Defendants.

BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and
Recommendation (#7) on June 27, 2017, in which he recommends this
Court dismiss this matter sua sponte with prejudice and deny as
moot Plaintiff’s Application (#1) for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis and Plaintiff’s Motion (#3) for Appointment of Pro Bono
Counsel.

Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Findings and

Recommendation.

The matter is now before this Court pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

1 - ORDER

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make
a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's
report.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561

F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).
With respect to the recommendation to deny as moot
Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,
the Court notes Plaintiff did not pay a filing fee.

Individuals

seeking to file a civil action in this Court must pay a filing
fee unless they qualify for in forma pauperis status.
U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a)(l).

See 28

In order to qualify for in forma

pauperis status, a plaintiff must show he is unable to pay the
filing fee.

When a plaintiff establishes he is unable to pay the

filing fee, the Court must also screen the complaint to determine
whether it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune.
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

See 28

Plaintiff’s Application establishes he

is unable to pay the filing fee.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s Application (#1) for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis.
The Court, however, has also carefully considered
Plaintiff’s Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis
to modify that portion of the Findings and Recommendation in
2 - ORDER

which the Magistrate Judge concludes this Court lacks subjectmatter and personal jurisdiction.

The Court also has reviewed

the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find
any error in that portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendation.

As the Magistrate Judge explained in his

Findings and Recommendation the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits
federal courts from exercising de facto appellate review of final
state court judgments.

In addition, the Ninth Circuit has made

clear that actions and claims subject to Rooker-Feldman are
properly dismissed with prejudice.

See, e.g., Ismail v. County

of Orange, No. 14-56486, 2017 WL 2211266, at *3 (May 19, 2017)
(Concluding the district court did not err when it dismissed with
prejudice the plaintiff’s claims that were barred by the RookerFeldman doctrine).

Accordingly, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES

with prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS as modified Magistrate Judge Papak’s
Findings and Recommendation (#7).

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s Application (#1) for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis, DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s Motion (#3) for Appointment
of Pro Bono Counsel, and sua sponte DISMISSES with prejudice

3 - ORDER

Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 25th day of July, 2017.

/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge

4 - ORDER