Ward v. Vasquez et al

Filing 9

Opinion and Order: Plaintiff's Amended Complaint 8 is Dismissed with prejudice. Signed on 3/18/2016 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MICHEAL L. WARD,
Plaintiff,

Civ. No. 6:16-cv-00342-MC
OPINION AND ORDER

V.

AMBER R. WORTHEN VASQUEZ,
et al.,
Defendants.

MCSHANE, Judge:
Plaintiff, prose, brings this motion to proceed informa pauperis, ECF No. 2, in an action
against various defendants alleging grievances that appear to be related to an adverse custody
ruling in the Superior Court of Washington for King County. See Compl., ECF No. 1.
On March 2, 2016, this Court issued an Opinion and Order, ECF No. 6, dismissing
Plaintiffs Complaint with leave to amend. In that Order, the Court identified a number of
discrepancies in Plaintiffs allegations and determined that the Complaint failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. See id at 2. Plaintiff then filed his Amended Complaint, which
he entitled "Void Ab Initio Judgment." ECF No. 8.
Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(h)(3) provides: "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);
see also Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick, 505 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974) ("It has
long been held that a judge can dismiss sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction"). Moreover, this
Court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under FRCP 12(b)( 6) for failure to state a claim upon
1 - OPINION AND ORDER

which relief can be granted. Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987)
(citations omitted). Likewise, if a plaintiff proceeds informa pauperis, this Court is required to
dismiss "the case at any time if the court determines that" the action or appeal is "frivolous or
malicious" or "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Upon review, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, ECF No. 8, is DISMISSED with prejudice

in its entirety.
STANDARD OF REVIEW

"In civil rights cases where the plaintiff appears prose, [this Court] must construe the
pleadings liberally and must afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt." Karim-Panahi v. L.A.

Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). This Court must give a prose
litigant "leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of
the complaint could not be cured by amendment." Id. (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted). "Moreover, before dismissing a prose civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim,
[this Court] must give the plaintiff a statement of the complaint's deficiencies." Id.
DISCUSSION

Plaintiff appears to broadly seek relief under the Due Process Clause, 18 U.S.C. § 1001,
and 42 USC§ 1983, among other sections. See Compl. 3, ECF No. 1. To survive an assessment
under FRCP 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a plaintiff must allege "enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007). Such facts are presumed true and must constitute "more than a sheer possibility that
a defendant acted unlawfully." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

2

OPINION AND ORDER

Upon review, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint appears to be an attempt at an end run
around state court custody proceedings. Plaintiff claims state court proceedings which ostensibly
resulted in revocation of custody of his child constitute kidnapping and fraud upon him.
While I find Plaintiffs situation unfortunate, his challenge is barred by the Rooker-

Feldman doctrine, which precludes lower federal courts from hearing claims that collaterally
attack prior state court decisions. See Ignacio v. Judges of US. Court ofAppeals for the Ninth

Circuit, 453 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2006); District of Columbia Court ofAppeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462, 482 & n.16 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923).
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal courts lack jurisdiction to exercise
appellate review over state court judgments. See Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, NA., 525 F.3d 855,
858-59 (9th Cir. 2008); see also D.C. Court ofAppeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482-86; Rooker

v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 415-16. "The clearest case for dismissal based on the RookerFeldman doctrine occurs when '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 ... "'

Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 613 (9th Cir. 2007), quoting Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d
1148, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003). However, the doctrine is equally applicable to bar the federal courts
"from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court
judgment." Reusser, 525 F.3d at 859, quoting Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139
(9th Cir. 2004), citing Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003). An action
brought in federal court constitutes such an appeal if "claims raised in the federal court action are
'inextricably intertwined' with [a] state court's decision such that the adjudication of the federal
claims would undercut the state ruling or require the district court to interpret the application of
state laws or procedural rules." Id., quoting Bianchi, 334 F.3d at 898. In essence, the Rooker3 - OPINION AND ORDER

Feldman doctrine provides that "a party losing in state court is barred from seeking what in

substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court, based
on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's federal rights."
Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994) (citations omitted).

Here, Plaintiff plainly seeks relief from a state court judgment regarding custody over his
child. His current claims are "inextricably intertwined" with the complained-of decision of the
Superior Court of Washington for King County. Because no amendment of the Amended
Complaint could effectively cure this jurisdictional deficiency, Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed
in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, ECF No. 8, is DISMISSED with
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 11_ day of March, 2016.

\~--

l

Michael J. McShane
United States District Judge

4 - OPINION AND ORDER