1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DAMEAD HOLMES, Case No. 1:24-cv-01573-JLT-EPG 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE 12 v. DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE BASED ON (1) LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER 13 JAMES HORG, et al., JURISDICTION; AND (2) THE YOUNGER ABSTENTION AND ROOKER-FELDMAN 14 Defendants. DOCTRINES 15 (ECF No. 1). 16 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS 17 18 Plaintiff Damead Holmes proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action. (ECF 19 Nos. 1, 3). Generally, Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order under a federal criminal statute 20 in connection with a dispute involving board members of his church. However, because (1) the 21 criminal statute that Plaintiff relies on to establish the Court’s jurisdiction fails to support any 22 private right of action and (2) there are ongoing state court proceedings relating to the events 23 mentioned in the complaint, the Court will recommend that this case be dismissed without 24 prejudice and without leave to amend based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and the 25 Younger abstention and Rooker-Feldman doctrines.1 26 27 1 See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of 28 Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). 1 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 2 Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3), the Court screens the 3 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii), which directs the Court to dismiss a case at any 4 time if the Court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief against an immune defendant. Likewise, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks 5 subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 6 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 7 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 8 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 9 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 10 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 11 matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting 12 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this 13 plausibility standard. Id. at 679. While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not 14 required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 15 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Additionally, a plaintiff’s legal 16 conclusions are not accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 17 Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less stringent standards than formal 18 pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that 19 pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after Iqbal). 20 II. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINT 21 Plaintiff lists four Defendants: (1) former Board Member Patrick McKendrick; (2) former 22 Board Member James Horg; (3) Church Clerk Sarah Mejia; and (4) former Treasurer David 23 Ferry. As for the basis of federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff lists 18 U.S.C. § 1514, which 24 permits a district court, in limited circumstances discussed below, to “issue a temporary 25 restraining order prohibiting harassment of a victim or witness in a Federal criminal case.” 18 26 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(1). For his factual allegations, Plaintiff refers to an email attached to his 27 complaint, which states as follows: 28 1 On October 27, 2023, while fulfilling my duties as a pastor at United Christian Church, I was physically assaulted by former board member James Horg. Horg, 2 dissatisfied with his removal from the board, and another individual, Patrick McKendrick, resisted the peaceful transition of the church’s governance. During 3 the encounter, Horg threatened and harassed me and our congregation. In an effort 4 to defend myself from Horg’s aggression, I reacted in self-defense. Simultaneously, McKendrick threatened me with a firearm. 5 In the aftermath, Horg alleged that I had deliberately assaulted him, using his 6 injuries to manipulate a restraining order against me. This has hindered my ability to fulfill my responsibilities to the church. Both Horg and McKendrick engage in 7 business under the name of United Christian Church, despite not representing the church itself; they are effectively “squatting” on the church’s identity. They 8 continue to use the Secretary of State illegally to change the board of directors, undermining the legitimate governance of the church. 9 Their actions have involved harassment and intimidation, weaponizing the 10 situation against me. I previously sought help from OSHA and consulted with legal counsel, but the circumstances have been used as a means of harassment, 11 damaging my career and ministry. 12 The restraining orders currently in place Horgs against me. And mines against Mckendricks does not keep them from the church property. They are growing in 13 violence and irrational thinking. 14 (ECF No. 1, p. 7). 15 As for relief, Plaintiff states that he wants a temporary restraining order “until hearing to 16 regain the Church Board’s access to our sanctuary.” (Id. at 6) (minor alterations for readability). 17 III. LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION 18 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 19 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “Article III, § 2, of the Constitution delineates [t]he character of 20 the controversies over which federal judicial authority may extend. And lower federal-court 21 jurisdiction is further limited to those subjects encompassed within a statutory grant of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the district courts may not exercise jurisdiction absent a statutory 22 basis.” Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1746 (2019) (alteration in original) 23 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 24 In 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a), Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction 25 over two general types of cases: cases that aris[e] under federal law and cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000 and there is diversity of 26 citizenship among the parties.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DAMEAD HOLMES, Case No. 1:24-cv-01573-JLT-EPG 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE 12 v. DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE BASED ON (1) LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER 13 JAMES HORG, et al., JURISDICTION; AND (2) THE YOUNGER ABSTENTION AND ROOKER-FELDMAN 14 Defendants. DOCTRINES 15 (ECF No. 1). 16 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS 17 18 Plaintiff Damead Holmes proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action. (ECF 19 Nos. 1, 3). Generally, Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order under a federal criminal statute 20 in connection with a dispute involving board members of his church. However, because (1) the 21 criminal statute that Plaintiff relies on to establish the Court’s jurisdiction fails to support any 22 private right of action and (2) there are ongoing state court proceedings relating to the events 23 mentioned in the complaint, the Court will recommend that this case be dismissed without 24 prejudice and without leave to amend based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and the 25 Younger abstention and Rooker-Feldman doctrines.1 26 27 1 See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of 28 Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). 1 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 2 Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3), the Court screens the 3 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii), which directs the Court to dismiss a case at any 4 time if the Court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief against an immune defendant. Likewise, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks 5 subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 6 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 7 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 8 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 9 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 10 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 11 matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting 12 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this 13 plausibility standard. Id. at 679. While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not 14 required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 15 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Additionally, a plaintiff’s legal 16 conclusions are not accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 17 Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less stringent standards than formal 18 pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that 19 pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after Iqbal). 20 II. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINT 21 Plaintiff lists four Defendants: (1) former Board Member Patrick McKendrick; (2) former 22 Board Member James Horg; (3) Church Clerk Sarah Mejia; and (4) former Treasurer David 23 Ferry. As for the basis of federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff lists 18 U.S.C. § 1514, which 24 permits a district court, in limited circumstances discussed below, to “issue a temporary 25 restraining order prohibiting harassment of a victim or witness in a Federal criminal case.” 18 26 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(1). For his factual allegations, Plaintiff refers to an email attached to his 27 complaint, which states as follows: 28 1 On October 27, 2023, while fulfilling my duties as a pastor at United Christian Church, I was physically assaulted by former board member James Horg. Horg, 2 dissatisfied with his removal from the board, and another individual, Patrick McKendrick, resisted the peaceful transition of the church’s governance. During 3 the encounter, Horg threatened and harassed me and our congregation. In an effort 4 to defend myself from Horg’s aggression, I reacted in self-defense. Simultaneously, McKendrick threatened me with a firearm. 5 In the aftermath, Horg alleged that I had deliberately assaulted him, using his 6 injuries to manipulate a restraining order against me. This has hindered my ability to fulfill my responsibilities to the church. Both Horg and McKendrick engage in 7 business under the name of United Christian Church, despite not representing the church itself; they are effectively “squatting” on the church’s identity. They 8 continue to use the Secretary of State illegally to change the board of directors, undermining the legitimate governance of the church. 9 Their actions have involved harassment and intimidation, weaponizing the 10 situation against me. I previously sought help from OSHA and consulted with legal counsel, but the circumstances have been used as a means of harassment, 11 damaging my career and ministry. 12 The restraining orders currently in place Horgs against me. And mines against Mckendricks does not keep them from the church property. They are growing in 13 violence and irrational thinking. 14 (ECF No. 1, p. 7). 15 As for relief, Plaintiff states that he wants a temporary restraining order “until hearing to 16 regain the Church Board’s access to our sanctuary.” (Id. at 6) (minor alterations for readability). 17 III. LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION 18 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 19 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “Article III, § 2, of the Constitution delineates [t]he character of 20 the controversies over which federal judicial authority may extend. And lower federal-court 21 jurisdiction is further limited to those subjects encompassed within a statutory grant of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the district courts may not exercise jurisdiction absent a statutory 22 basis.” Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1746 (2019) (alteration in original) 23 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 24 In 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a), Congress granted federal courts jurisdiction 25 over two general types of cases: cases that aris[e] under federal law and cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000 and there is diversity of 26 citizenship among the parties. These jurisdictional grants are known as federal- 27 question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction, respectively. Each serves a distinct purpose: Federal-question jurisdiction affords parties a federal forum in which to 28 vindicate federal rights, whereas diversity jurisdiction provides a neutral forum for 1 parties from different States. 2 Id. (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). A plaintiff “properly 3 invokes” subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1331 when he “pleads a colorable claim arising 4 under the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 5 Here, Plaintiff’s principal allegations are that he was harassed and threatened by 6 Defendants Horg and McKendrick in connection with board proceedings involving his church 7 and Horg improperly obtained a restraining order against him that apparently prevents Plaintiff 8 from accessing the church. 9 As for the basis for federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff cites 18 U.S.C. § 1514. 10 Presumably, Plaintiff intends to rely on the following provision of the statute: 11 A United States district court, upon application of the attorney for the 12 Government, shall issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting harassment of a victim or witness in a Federal criminal case if the court finds, from specific facts 13 shown by affidavit or by verified complaint, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that harassment of an identified victim or witness in a Federal criminal 14 case exists or that such order is necessary to prevent and restrain an offense under 15 section 1512 of this title, other than an offense consisting of misleading conduct, or under section 1513 of this title. 16 18 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(1). 17 However, Plaintiff’s reliance on this statute is not proper because it does not confer a 18 private right of action necessary to establish subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. As a 19 general matter, “unless a specific statute provides for a private right of action, courts have found 20 that violations of Title 18 are properly brought by the United States government through criminal 21 proceedings and not by individuals in a civil action.” Banuelos v. Gabler, No. 1:18-CV-00675- 22 LJO-SAB, 2018 WL 2328221, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 22, 2018). 23 Here, the statute provides that an “attorney for the Government” may apply for a 24 temporary restraining order prohibiting harassment of a victim or witness in a federal criminal 25 case. The statute does not confer a right on a private individual, like Plaintiff, to apply for a temporary restraining order. Accordingly, courts that have addressed this provision have 26 concluded that it does not confer a private right of action. See Ronet v. Reeder, No. CV-24- 27 01843-PHX-DWL, 2024 WL 3848430, at *3 (D. Ariz. Aug. 16, 2024) (finding no basis for civil 28 1 claim at screening stage based on 18 U.S.C. § 1514); Smith v. Emps., No. 3:17-CV-04421, 2018 2 WL 4381277, at *3 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 14, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 3 3493082 (S.D.W. Va. July 20, 2018) (“Although 18 U.S.C. § 1514 addresses harassment, it is 4 essentially a criminal statute with no associated private cause of action.”); McClure v. Menard Corr. Ctr., No. 11-CV-984-JPG, 2012 WL 3062235, at *4 (S.D. Ill. July 26, 2012) (“First, 18 5 U.S.C. § 1514 provides a mechanism for protecting a victim or witness in a Federal criminal case, 6 not a civil rights action.”). 7 In short, because 18 U.S.C. § 1514 provides no private right of action, the complaint fails 8 to identify a sufficient basis for the Court to exercise jurisdiction based on any federal question. 9 There being no other basis for jurisdiction over a cognizable legal claim implicated by the 10 complaint, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction 11 over this case. 12 IV. YOUNGER ABSTENTION AND ROOKER-FELDMAN 13 A. Legal Standards 14 Two doctrines prevent a federal court from interfering with state court proceedings. The 15 first is a doctrine called Younger abstention, which is rooted in the “desire to permit state courts 16 to try state cases free from interference by federal courts.” Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43 17 (1971). Thus, “[a]bsent extraordinary circumstances, interests of comity and federalism instruct 18 federal courts to abstain from exercising our jurisdiction in certain circumstances when asked to 19 enjoin ongoing state enforcement proceedings.” Page v. King, 932 F.3d 898, 901 (9th Cir. 2019) 20 (alterations, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). 21 Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) there is an 22 adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges; and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the practical effect of enjoining 23 the ongoing state judicial proceeding. 24 Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) (alterations, citation, and internal 25 quotation marks omitted). 26 Typically, dismissal is required for Younger abstention. Aiona v. Judiciary of State of 27 Hawaii, 17 F.3d 1244, 1248 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that, when abstaining under Younger, “a 28 district court must dismiss the federal action . . . [and] there is no discretion to grant injunctive 1 relief”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). But “federal courts should not dismiss 2 actions where damages are at issue; rather, damages actions should be stayed until the state 3 proceedings are completed.” Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 968 (9th Cir. 2004). Lastly, 4 “Federal courts will not abstain under Younger in extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown.” Page, 932 F.3d at 902 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 5 “[B]ad faith and harassment” are “the usual prerequisites” to show “the necessary irreparable 6 injury.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 53. 7 The next doctrine is known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which “takes its name from 8 two Supreme Court cases: Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 9 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 10 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).” Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2010). Under this 11 doctrine, lower federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction in “cases brought by state-court 12 losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the [federal] 13 district court proceedings commenced and inviting [federal] district court review and rejection of 14 those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). 15 “The purpose of the doctrine is to protect state judgments from collateral federal attack. Because 16 district courts lack power to hear direct appeals from state court decisions, they must decline 17 jurisdiction whenever they are ‘in essence being called upon to review the state court decision.”’ 18 Doe & Associates Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 19 Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482 n.16). 20 B. Analysis 21 It appears from the face of the complaint that Plaintiff desires to challenge actions related 22 to either ongoing or past California state court matters. Specifically, Plaintiff states that Horg has 23 “a restraining order against” him, which the Court presumes is based on California law as that is the only apparent authority that would permit a restraining order under these circumstances. 24 Likewise, Plaintiff states that he has a restraining order against McKendrick. 25 Plaintiff appears to ask the Court to become involved in one or both of the restraining 26 orders, as he requests a temporary restraining order “until hearing to regain the Church Board’s 27 access to our sanctuary,” which indicates that Plaintiff is unable to access his church because of a 28 1 California restraining order issued against him. 2 Notably, in analogous circumstances, courts have concluded that plaintiffs were 3 improperly trying to obtain federal court intervention in state court matters. See Malberg v. 4 McCracken, No. 5:22-CV-01713-EJD, 2023 WL 2769095, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2023) (“For the purposes of the second Rooker-Feldman element, it is difficult to envision a clearer example 5 of a plaintiff attempting to blatantly end run an adverse state court judgment. Several federal 6 courts in California have also used the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to dismiss complaints with 7 remarkably similar allegations challenging California domestic violence restraining orders.”); 8 Ervin v. California, No. 3:18-CV-00442-GPC-RBB, 2018 WL 3375058, at *4 (S.D. Cal. July 11, 9 2018) (“Essentially, plaintiff is asking this court to overturn the state court’s order issuing the 10 protective order and the gun prohibition, making this a de facto appeal of the state court order that 11 is prohibited under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.”); Steinmetz v. Steinmetz, No. CIV 08-0629 12 JB/WDS, 2008 WL 5991009, at *10 (D.N.M. Aug. 27, 2008) (dismissing complaint under 13 Younger abstention due to ongoing state-court domestic violence, divorce, and custody 14 proceedings). 15 Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks federal intervention in any state court 16 proceedings, the Younger abstention and Rooker-Feldman doctrines prohibit such relief under 17 these circumstances. 18 V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 19 “Although leave to amend a deficient complaint shall be freely given when justice so 20 requires, Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), leave may be denied if amendment of the complaint would be 21 futile.” Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Here, 22 the only basis asserted in the complaint for jurisdiction, 18 U.S.C. § 1514, fails. Likewise, 23 Plaintiff’s claims involve intervention in state court matters in violation of the Younger abstention and Rooker-Feldman doctrines. Under such circumstances, granting leave to amend would be 24 futile. 25 Based on the above discussion, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 26 1. This case be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend based on lack of 27 subject-matter jurisdiction and the Younger abstention and Rooker-Feldman doctrines. 28 1 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 2 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 3 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) 4 | days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 5 | objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 6 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 7 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 8 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). ? | IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 1, | Dated: _January 8, 2025 [see ey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28