Bell v. Oama Coronado LLC

Opinion

MICHAEL BELL, et al., Case No.: 25-cv-01170-CAB-DEB

Plaintiffs, ORDER TO DISMISS AMENDED v. COMPLAINT

OAMA CORONADO LLC, et al., [Doc. No 5] Defendants. On May 7, 2025, Plaintiffs Michael Bell and Lisa Philips filed a complaint against Defendants Oama Coronado LLC, Todd Brisco & Associates, Valerie Sparks, Judge Peter F. Murray, and Sirein Roman. [Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiffs filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). [Doc. No. 2.] Plaintiffs also filed a motion to stay ongoing Superior Court proceedings. [Doc. No. 3.] The Court allowed Plaintiffs to proceed IFP but dismissed the complaint and denied the motion for stay with leave to amend. [Doc. No. 4.] Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint. [Doc. No. 5.] The Court again screens the amended complaint and dismisses without leave to amend. The Court construes Plaintiffs’ amended complaint liberally. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). The recent filing by Plaintiffs confirms the Court’s prior analysis: Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and damages relief challenging “the conduct and procedures occurring during [a] ongoing state proceeding.” [Doc. No. 5 at 1.] As it relates to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), “subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court’s power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waived.” United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002). This threshold requirement “‘spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States’ and is ‘inflexible and without exception.’” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998) (quoting Mansfield, C. & L.M. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884). Plaintiffs state that there has been no judgment entered against them. Taking this position as true, the Anti-Injunction Act nevertheless prohibits this Court from enjoining }ongoing state court proceedings with limited exceptions, none of which apply here. 28 U.S.C. § 2283; see Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng ’rs, 398 U.S. 281, 286 (1970) (listing exceptions). Numerous district courts have agreed, specifically in the /context of unlawful detainer proceedings. See, e.g., Diaz v. National City Bank, No. 10- CV-1230-IEG (WVG), 2012 WL 2129916, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 12, 2012). Any amendment here would be futile. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). This case is dismissed without leave to amend. The Clerk is directed to close the case. Dated: May 19, 2025 (8 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge