Adrianne Bell v. DCFS Wateridge

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: December 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-08473
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

12 ADRIANNE BELL, No. 2:25-cv-08473-AB-AJR 13 Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 14 THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DCFS WATERIDGE, DISMISSED FOR LACK OF 15 JURISDICTION Defendant. 16

17 18 19 I. 20 INTRODUCTION 21 On September 4, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Adrianne Bell (“Plaintiff”) filed a 22 “Verified Petition for Writ of Scire Facias to Vacate Void Judgment Under FRCP 23 60(d)(1), FRCP 60(d)(3), and 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act)” against DCFS 24 Wateridge (the “Petition”). (Dkt. 1.) The Petition is difficult to understand and 25 includes eighty-seven pages of attachments with unclear relevance. (Id.) However, 26 Plaintiff appears to be requesting that the Court vacate a judgment entered by the 27 Los Angeles County Superior Court in Case No. 23CCJP04256D. (Id. at 33-88.) 28 Plaintiff asserts that judgments entered without jurisdiction or by fraud upon the 1 Plaintiff appears to request that the judgment of the Los Angeles County Superior 2 Court be vacated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d). (Id.) 3 “Federal courts are always under an independent obligation to examine their 4 own jurisdiction, and a federal court may not entertain an action over which it has 5 no jurisdiction.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (per 6 curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, this Court has 7 reviewed the Petition and believes that it should decline jurisdiction over this action 8 9 for the reasons outlined below. 10 11 II. 12 DISCUSSION 13 Plaintiff’s claims implicate the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Under the Rooker- 14 Feldman doctrine, federal district courts are precluded from reviewing state court 15 judgments in “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused 16 by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings and inviting 17 district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Brown v. Duringer Law 18 Grp. PLC, 86 F.4th 1251, 1254 (9th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted); 19 Mothershed v. Justices of Supreme Court, 410 F.3d 602, 606 (9th Cir. 2005). The 20 U.S. Supreme Court is the only federal court with jurisdiction to hear such an appeal 21 through a petition for writ of certiorari. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th 22 Cir. 2003). 23 To determine whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is applicable, a federal 24 district first must “determine whether the action contains a forbidden de facto appeal 25 of a state court decision.” Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 2013) 26 (italics added). “A de facto appeal exists when a federal plaintiff [1] asserts as a 27 legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and [2] seeks relief 28 from a state court judgment based on that decision.” Id. (internal quotation marks 1 the state courts finally resolve the issue that the federal court plaintiff seeks to 2 relitigate in a federal forum, even if other issues remain pending at 3 the state level.” Mothershed, 410 F.3d at 604 n.1. 4 Second, only when a federal plaintiff “complains of harm caused by a state 5 court judgment that directly withholds a benefit from . . . [them] based on an 6 allegedly erroneous ruling by that court,” must the district court determine whether 7 the federal claims are “inextricably intertwined with the state court’s [ruling].” 8 9 Hooper v. Brnovich, 56 F.4th 619, 624 (9th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks, 10 brackets, and citation omitted). Claims are inextricably intertwined if “the relief 11 requested in the federal action would effectively reverse the state court decision or 12 void its ruling.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Stated plainly, “the United 13 States District Court, as a court of original jurisdiction, has no authority to review 14 the final determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings.” Worldwide Church 15 of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1986). 16 Here, Plaintiff’s claims are brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 60(d)(1) and 60(d)(3). (Dkt. 1 at 1.) Rule 60, however, only authorizes a federal 18 district court to set aside one of its own judgments or orders, and not a judgment or 19 order of another court. See Holder v. Simon, 384 Fed. Appx. 669 (9th Cir. 2010) 20 (“The district court properly dismissed Holder’s complaint sua sponte because Rule 21 60(b) does not provide a basis for subject matter jurisdiction over a claim for relief 22 from a state court judgment.”); see also de Mol v. Grand Canyon Title Agency, 23 2010 WL 4269534, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 25, 2010) (“Plaintiffs seek relief under Rule 24 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure, but that is not the appropriate 25 mechanism for challenging the validity of a state court’s judgment.” (internal 26 quotation marks omitted)) (collecting cases). 27 Moreover, Plaintiff appears to challenge “[a]ll orders and judgments entered 28 against bonded trust estate property without jurisdiction . . . .” (Dkt. 1 at 1.) 1 || However, a request to declare a state court judgment void “is squarely barred by 2 Rooker-Feldman.” Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 614 (9th Cir. 3 || 2007). Thus, Plaintiffs Petition appears to constitute a classic de facto appeal of the 4 || State court’s orders and judgments. 5 6 III. 7 ORDER 8 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff 1s ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why 9 || this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on or before December 10 || 29,2025. Plaintiff may satisfy this Order by filing a response, signed under penalty 11 || of perjury, explaining any reason why this Court has jurisdiction over the action in 12 || light of the legal analysis set forth above. Plaintiff is warned that failure to timely 13 || respond to this Order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed 14 || without prejudice for failure to obey court orders and/or failure to prosecute. If 15 || Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action, Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the 16 || action by filing a Notice of Dismissal in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil 17 || Procedure 41(a)(1). A form Notice of Dismissal is attached for convenience. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 || DATED: December 8, 2025 21

3 HON) A. JOEL RICHLIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 2) || Attachment: 26 || CV-09, Notice of Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a) or 97 (c). 28