(PS) Page v. County of Sacramento

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAUN PAGE, Case No. 2:25-cv-01706-DJC-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this suit against Defendants. The matter was 18 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 19 Local Rule 302. 20 On October 31, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 21 Recommendations herein which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice 22 to Plaintiff that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed 23 within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff has filed objections to the Findings and 24 Recommendations (ECF No. 7), which the Court has read and considered. 25 Having conducted a de novo review of this case, the Court finds that the 26 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations as to Plaintiff’s challenge to the 27 granted Domestic Violence Restraining Order (“DVRO”), as well as the denial of his 28 own DVRO, to be supported by the record and the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. These 1 claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine which precludes Plaintiff from 2 stating claims based on a claimed legal injury caused by a state court judgment. See 3 Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2003). However, on review, it appears that 4 Plaintiff has also sought to state claims based on the policies and practices of the 5 County of Sacramento in connection with the treatment of domestic violence cases. 6 (See ECF No. 5 ¶ 19.) In the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Miroth v. County of 7 Trinity, 136 F.4th 1141 (9th Cir. 2025), the court reaffirmed the narrow scope of the 8 Rooker-Feldman doctrine. As noted by the court in Miroth, claims that would not 9 require a review of a judicial decision in a particular case and do not seek relief from 10 that judgment do not raise the jurisdiction limits recognized by the Rooker-Feldman 11 doctrine. Id. at 1151. Plaintiff’s claims are at least partially based on claims of 12 constitutional violations separate and apart from the issuance and denial of the 13 DVROs. (See ECF No. 5 ¶ 19.d (alleging the County of Sacramento has “[a] 14 policy/custom of ignoring or dismissing male victims of sexual assault and domestic 15 abuse, reflecting gender bias and denying equal protection.”), 19.e (alleging 16 deliberate indifference by Defendants in training and supervising “deputies and 17 prosecutors in handling DVROs, perjury, and due process rights.”).) As such, Rooker- 18 Feldman does not properly apply to these claims. 19 Nevertheless, it does not presently appear that Plaintiff has alleged state facts 20 to state a claim. Within Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint there are only limited 21 factual allegations supporting these claims. These allegations are almost exclusively 22 conclusory allegations. For example, Plaintiff stated that “[t]he Sacramento County 23 District Attorney pursued criminal charges based on perjured testimony and 24 incomplete evidence, reflecting a custom of prosecuting without adequate evidentiary 25 review[,]” (id. ¶ 12), but Plaintiff does not provide any supporting factual allegations 26 for this claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims must still be dismissed as presented, 27 28 1 || albeit with leave to amend. ' 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 31, 2025, are ADOPTED 4 IN PART and DENIED IN PART as stated above. 5 2. Petitioner's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) is DISMISSED with leave 6 to amend. 7 3. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days of 8 service of this order. Failure to file an amended complaint within this time 9 may result in the action being dismissed in its entirety. 10 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further 11 pretrial proceedings. 12 13 IT 1S SO ORDERED. Dated: _July 2, 2026 “Dane J □□ Hon. Daniel alabretta "5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | SS ' As noted by the Magistrate Judge, the Younger abstention doctrine may still present a barrier to 28 || Plaintiff's claims. (See ECF No. 6 at 6.) However, that potential issue cannot yet be resolved.