Bailey v. Santa Clara County Superior Court

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 JASPER BAILEY, Case No. 21-cv-00279-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 22 COURT, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California, has filed a pro 14 se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 25, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to 15 proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 17), dismissed the action as barred by the Rooker-Feldman 16 doctrine (Dkt. No. 16), and entered judgment in favor of Defendants (Dkt. No. 18). On April 20, 17 2021, Plaintiff sent the Court a notice of appeal (Dkt. No. 21), and objections to the dismissal 18 (Dkt. No. 22), which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration.12 For the reasons set 19 forth below, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 21 I. Background 22 In this action, Plaintiff brought suit against Santa Clara County Superior Court for denying 23 1 The Court affords Petitioner application of the mailbox rule as to the filing of these pleadings. 24 Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988) (pro se prisoner filing is dated from date prisoner delivers it to prison authorities). It appears that Plaintiff gave these pleadings to prison authorities 25 for mailing on or about April 20, 2020. Dkt. No. 21 at 8; Dkt. No. 22 at 4. 22 A notice of appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction if at the time it was filed there 26 was then a pending motion for reconsideration. United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. R&D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2001). Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(B)(i), such a 27 notice of appeal does not become effective, and the district court does not lose jurisdiction, until 1 his request for testing of potentially exculpatory DNA evidence that was obtained in 2018, arguing 2 that he has a constitutional right to DNA testing. Dkt. No. 1. On March 25, 2021, the Court 3 dismissed this action with prejudice as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which holds that 4 lower federal courts are without subject matter jurisdiction to review state court decisions. See 5 District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87 (1983); Rooker v. 6 Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). The Court cited to Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 7 779-81 (9th Cir. 2012), in which the Ninth Circuit specifically held that challenging a state court’s 8 denial of DNA testing pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1405 was barred by the Rooker-Feldman 9 doctrine, even if the challenge was cast as a federal constitutional issue. See ECF No. 16. 10 II. Legal Standard 11 Where the court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order (e.g., after dismissal or 12 summary judgment motion), a motion for reconsideration may be based either on Rule 59(e) 13 (motion to alter or amend judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion for relief from judgment) of the 14 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b); see also School Dist. No. 1K, 15 Multnomah Cty, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is 16 appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed 17 clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in 18 controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263; accord Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of 19 Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989). With respect to a reconsideration motion 20 brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or 21 more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; 22 (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to 23 move for a new trial; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 24 been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 25 III. Analysis 26 Plaintiff has not specified whether he seeks relief pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). 27 Regardless, Plaintiff is not entitled to reconsideration pursuant to either Rule. Because Plaintiff 1 pursuant to either Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (clear error) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) (mistake). 2 || Petitioner argues that the Court erred in dismissing this action because (1) by citing to Proposition 3 69, he cited federal law in support of his argument; (2) the Court incorrectly applied the Rooker- 4 || Feldman doctrine because federal law is the supreme law in the United States and federal courts 5 have jurisdiction over, and the ability to review, any state court rulings, and because state laws are 6 || not independent and adequate to prevent federal review; and (3) the Court erred in stating that 7 Plaintiff was not harmed because he specified that he suffered damages and violation of his due 8 || process rights as a result of his pretrial arrest, inadequate representation by his trial attorney, and 9 || the trial judge tampering with witnesses. Dkt. No. 22 at 3. 10 Plaintiff's first two arguments are legally incorrect. First, Proposition 69 is a California 11 state proposition which modified state law. Proposition 69 does not confer any rights under 12 || federal law or the federal Constitution. Second, while state court litigants may obtain federal 13 review of a state court judgment, they may do so only by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in 14 the Supreme Court of the United States; lower federal courts, such as this Court, are without 3 15 subject matter jurisdiction to review state court decisions. See Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486-87 16 (1983); Rooker, 263 U.S. at 416. Finally, the Court made no findings regarding whether Plaintiff 3 17 suffered harm. The Court did not consider Plaintiff's claims regarding his pretrial arrest, the 18 || adequacy of his trial attorney’s representation, or witness tampering. In dismissing this action 19 with prejudice as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court neither committed clear error 20 || nor made any mistake. 22 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is DENIED. This 23 case remains closed. 24 This order terminates Dkt. No. 22. 26 || Dated: May 6, 2021 Asipured 3 Mbt). HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 28 United States District Judge