1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 KURT KAYWOOD, No. 2:24-cv-00931-DJC-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 DAVID KILGORE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Upon the screening of 19 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, this action should be dismissed without further leave to 20 amend. 21 I. Background and Procedural History 22 On September 18, 2024, this Court screened the complaint per the screening process 23 required by the IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and concluded the complaint failed to comply with 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, failed to plead a sufficient basis for jurisdiction, and failed to 25 state a claim. ECF No. 4. The screening order further set forth that if Plaintiff was attempting to 26 challenge a state court award of child support, this Court would lack jurisdiction to review it 27 under the Rooker Feldman doctrine. ECF No. 4 at 5. The Court’s order allowed Plaintiff 30 days 28 to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies and stated the amended complaint “must 1 include a sufficient jurisdictional statement and comply with Rule 8.” ECF No. 4 at 6. The Order 2 warned that noncompliance may result in a recommendation of dismissal. Id. 3 On October 16, 2024, Plaintiff responded to the Order by filing a motion for leave to file 4 electronically (ECF No. 5) and motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 6). On October 29, 5 2024, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause which directed Plaintiff to show cause why the 6 action should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction and/or failure to state 7 a claim. ECF No. 7. The Order warned: “If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the 8 Court will recommend that the action be dismissed.” ECF No. 7. Plaintiff responded by 9 contacting the Clerk’s Office on October 30, 2024, and asking the Clerk’s office to change the 10 name of his motion for summary judgment to “amended complaint and motion for summary 11 judgment.” Plaintiff then filed a Notice confirming that he had contacted the Clerk’s office, 12 stating there was a “clerical error” in the original description of ECF No. 6 and requesting the 13 name of the document be changed to include “amended complaint.” 14 II. Analysis 15 The Court will construe Plaintiff’s “Amended Request and Request for Summary 16 Judgment under Judicial Notice Constitutional Rights and Protections or (a Speedy Trial by 17 Impartal [sic] Jury” (ECF No. 6) as the first amended complaint (hereafter “FAC”). The FAC 18 does not cure the deficiencies set forth in the Court’s prior screening order. The FAC does not 19 contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason 20 the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing 21 that plaintiff is entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a 22 demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims are not set forth simply, 23 concisely and directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 24 Plaintiff states that in 2003 he was made aware of an unconstitutional ex parte meeting. 25 FAC at ¶ 2. Plaintiff states his daughter was treated as property of the state and his parental rights 26 were infringed. Id. at ¶ 3. During some vaguely described prior judicial proceeding, Plaintiff was 27 removed from the courtroom. Id. at ¶ 4. Plaintiff claims that the Department of Child Support 28 Services violated his constitutional rights by placing his daughter into the public system. Id. at ¶ 1 6. Plaintiff alleges he was compelled to submit to drug testing and his ability to travel was 2 restricted. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. Plaintiff does not allege who compelled him, or how or why his ability 3 to obtain a driver’s license or travel was impaired. Plaintiff then alleges that when he obtained 4 and reviewed the court file years later, he discovered that “no fees were to be charged”—which 5 the Court understands to be an allegation that the court file indicated he should not have been 6 charged fees in that case—and that “is the basis for the current court action.” Id. at ¶¶ 9-10. 7 Paragraphs 11 thru 15 of the FAC then largely repeat the allegations of paragraphs 6 thru 10. 8 Plaintiff requests damages in the amount of $9,000 per minute as his “fee rate” for the time he has 9 spent in court and preparing this case. Plaintiff attaches to the FAC nearly 40 pages of what are 10 largely illegible copies of state court pleadings, apparently from a Solano County Superior Court 11 family court proceeding. 12 Plaintiff has not addressed the deficiencies raised in the earlier screening order (ECF No. 13 4). The FAC fails to comply with Rule 8 and fails to state a claim. There are no allegations in 14 the FAC about specific defendants. There is no jurisdictional statement to address the Court’s 15 concerns about subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff appears to complain of state family court 16 proceedings. If that is what Plaintiff asserts, then this court would lack jurisdiction. Federal 17 district courts do not have jurisdiction to review final state court judgments. See Rooker v. Fid. 18 Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents “a party losing in state 19 court … from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a 20 United States district court.” Henrich v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 611 (9th Cir. 2009); See 21 also Ignacio v. Judges of U.S. Court of Appeals, 453 F.3d 1160, 1165-66 (9th Cir. 2006) 22 (affirming dismissal “because the complaint is nothing more than another attack on the California 23 superior court’s determination in [the plaintiff’s] domestic case”). Family law and child support 24 proceedings are traditional matters of state law for determination in state court, and Plaintiff has 25 not adequately alleged a basis for federal jurisdiction. See Scharfenberger v. Jacques, 2020 WL 26 589421 (E.D. Cal. Fed. 6, 2020) (“The court is without jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims under 27 the ‘domestic relations’ exception to federal jurisdiction because they concern child support 28 payments, which are exclusively matters of state law.”) (citing Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 1 689, 702-04 (1992)). 2 Additionally, due to the vagueness of Plaintiff’s FAC, it is unclear when the events of 3 which he complains occurred. However, Plaintiff does make reference to proceedings in 2003. 4 To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert a constitutional violation under § 1983, the statute of 5 limitations for such claim in California is two-years. See Nance v. Ward, 597 U.S. 159, 174 6 (2022) (“[A]ll § 1983 suits must be brought within a State’s statute of limitations for personal- 7 injury actions.”); Holt v. County of Orange, 91 F.4th 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 2024).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 KURT KAYWOOD, No. 2:24-cv-00931-DJC-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 DAVID KILGORE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Upon the screening of 19 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, this action should be dismissed without further leave to 20 amend. 21 I. Background and Procedural History 22 On September 18, 2024, this Court screened the complaint per the screening process 23 required by the IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and concluded the complaint failed to comply with 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, failed to plead a sufficient basis for jurisdiction, and failed to 25 state a claim. ECF No. 4. The screening order further set forth that if Plaintiff was attempting to 26 challenge a state court award of child support, this Court would lack jurisdiction to review it 27 under the Rooker Feldman doctrine. ECF No. 4 at 5. The Court’s order allowed Plaintiff 30 days 28 to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies and stated the amended complaint “must 1 include a sufficient jurisdictional statement and comply with Rule 8.” ECF No. 4 at 6. The Order 2 warned that noncompliance may result in a recommendation of dismissal. Id. 3 On October 16, 2024, Plaintiff responded to the Order by filing a motion for leave to file 4 electronically (ECF No. 5) and motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 6). On October 29, 5 2024, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause which directed Plaintiff to show cause why the 6 action should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction and/or failure to state 7 a claim. ECF No. 7. The Order warned: “If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the 8 Court will recommend that the action be dismissed.” ECF No. 7. Plaintiff responded by 9 contacting the Clerk’s Office on October 30, 2024, and asking the Clerk’s office to change the 10 name of his motion for summary judgment to “amended complaint and motion for summary 11 judgment.” Plaintiff then filed a Notice confirming that he had contacted the Clerk’s office, 12 stating there was a “clerical error” in the original description of ECF No. 6 and requesting the 13 name of the document be changed to include “amended complaint.” 14 II. Analysis 15 The Court will construe Plaintiff’s “Amended Request and Request for Summary 16 Judgment under Judicial Notice Constitutional Rights and Protections or (a Speedy Trial by 17 Impartal [sic] Jury” (ECF No. 6) as the first amended complaint (hereafter “FAC”). The FAC 18 does not cure the deficiencies set forth in the Court’s prior screening order. The FAC does not 19 contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason 20 the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing 21 that plaintiff is entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a 22 demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims are not set forth simply, 23 concisely and directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 24 Plaintiff states that in 2003 he was made aware of an unconstitutional ex parte meeting. 25 FAC at ¶ 2. Plaintiff states his daughter was treated as property of the state and his parental rights 26 were infringed. Id. at ¶ 3. During some vaguely described prior judicial proceeding, Plaintiff was 27 removed from the courtroom. Id. at ¶ 4. Plaintiff claims that the Department of Child Support 28 Services violated his constitutional rights by placing his daughter into the public system. Id. at ¶ 1 6. Plaintiff alleges he was compelled to submit to drug testing and his ability to travel was 2 restricted. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. Plaintiff does not allege who compelled him, or how or why his ability 3 to obtain a driver’s license or travel was impaired. Plaintiff then alleges that when he obtained 4 and reviewed the court file years later, he discovered that “no fees were to be charged”—which 5 the Court understands to be an allegation that the court file indicated he should not have been 6 charged fees in that case—and that “is the basis for the current court action.” Id. at ¶¶ 9-10. 7 Paragraphs 11 thru 15 of the FAC then largely repeat the allegations of paragraphs 6 thru 10. 8 Plaintiff requests damages in the amount of $9,000 per minute as his “fee rate” for the time he has 9 spent in court and preparing this case. Plaintiff attaches to the FAC nearly 40 pages of what are 10 largely illegible copies of state court pleadings, apparently from a Solano County Superior Court 11 family court proceeding. 12 Plaintiff has not addressed the deficiencies raised in the earlier screening order (ECF No. 13 4). The FAC fails to comply with Rule 8 and fails to state a claim. There are no allegations in 14 the FAC about specific defendants. There is no jurisdictional statement to address the Court’s 15 concerns about subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff appears to complain of state family court 16 proceedings. If that is what Plaintiff asserts, then this court would lack jurisdiction. Federal 17 district courts do not have jurisdiction to review final state court judgments. See Rooker v. Fid. 18 Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents “a party losing in state 19 court … from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a 20 United States district court.” Henrich v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 611 (9th Cir. 2009); See 21 also Ignacio v. Judges of U.S. Court of Appeals, 453 F.3d 1160, 1165-66 (9th Cir. 2006) 22 (affirming dismissal “because the complaint is nothing more than another attack on the California 23 superior court’s determination in [the plaintiff’s] domestic case”). Family law and child support 24 proceedings are traditional matters of state law for determination in state court, and Plaintiff has 25 not adequately alleged a basis for federal jurisdiction. See Scharfenberger v. Jacques, 2020 WL 26 589421 (E.D. Cal. Fed. 6, 2020) (“The court is without jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims under 27 the ‘domestic relations’ exception to federal jurisdiction because they concern child support 28 payments, which are exclusively matters of state law.”) (citing Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 1 689, 702-04 (1992)). 2 Additionally, due to the vagueness of Plaintiff’s FAC, it is unclear when the events of 3 which he complains occurred. However, Plaintiff does make reference to proceedings in 2003. 4 To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert a constitutional violation under § 1983, the statute of 5 limitations for such claim in California is two-years. See Nance v. Ward, 597 U.S. 159, 174 6 (2022) (“[A]ll § 1983 suits must be brought within a State’s statute of limitations for personal- 7 injury actions.”); Holt v. County of Orange, 91 F.4th 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 2024). 8 As the Court advised in the earlier screening order, in order to state a claim on which 9 relief may be granted, a plaintiff must allege enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is 10 plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the 11 plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 12 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se litigant should 13 be given leave to amend the complaint, and some notice of the deficiencies, unless it is clear the 14 deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 15 (9th Cir. 1995). 16 Further leave to amend should not be granted. Plaintiff’s original Complaint was 133- 17 pages long and a mishmash of various documents. ECF No. 1. It appeared that Plaintiff may 18 have been requesting to remove a family court matter to federal court and some of the documents 19 submitted with the Complaint pertained to child support. The Complaint was convoluted and 20 contained frivolous assertions such as there have been no courts or judges in America since 1789. 21 ECF No. 1 at 20. The FAC contains further positions baldly unsupported by law, such as seeking 22 $9,000 per minute in damages for his work on this case. Most significantly, it is clear that 23 Plaintiff wants this court to second guess in some way a state court judgment in a family law 24 matter, and one that may be decades old. For reasons explained in the prior screening order and 25 above, the Court lacks jurisdiction to do that. The Court concludes that granting further leave to 26 amend would be futile. See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 27 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Where the legal basis for a cause of action is tenuous, futility supports the 28 refusal to grant leave to amend.”); Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1 1072 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that “the district court's discretion to deny leave to amend is 2 particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint” (citation and internal 3 quotation marks omitted)). 4 III. Conclusion 5 The FAC thus does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1)-(2) as it does 6 not contain a “short and plain” statement setting forth the grounds for federal jurisdiction, or a 7 short and plain statement showing Plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. The exact nature of what 8 happened to Plaintiff is unclear from the FAC. There are no allegations as to any specific 9 defendant. The court cannot tell from examining the FAC what legal wrong was done to 10 Plaintiff, by whom and when, or how any alleged harm is connected to the relief Plaintiff seeks. 11 It also appears that Plaintiff seeks to have this Court do something that it is not permitted to: 12 review a state court family law judgment. 13 Accordingly, the FAC does not establish federal jurisdiction, does not comply with Rule 14 8, and fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Having previously granted leave to 15 amend, the Court determines that further leave to amend would be futile. 16 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
17 1. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915(e)(2) without further leave to amend, and to the extent Plaintiff seeks summary 19 judgment (ECF No. 6) that motion be DENIED; 20 2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file electronically (ECF No. 5) be DENIED as moot on 21 account of the prospective dismissal of this action; and 22 3. The Clerk be directed to close this file. 23 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 25 after being served with these findings and recommendations, either party may file written 26 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 27 Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 28 1 | specified time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. 2 || Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). SO ORDERED. * | DATED: December 26, 2024 mk 5 . 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28