1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES SANDFORD, No. 2:24-cv-03343 DAD CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 TERRANOVA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff has requested authority pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. This proceeding was referred to this 19 court by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is unable 21 to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma 22 pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 23 However, the determination that a plaintiff may proceed without payment of fees does not 24 complete the inquiry. Under the IFP statute, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss any 25 claims that are “frivolous or malicious,” fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or 26 seek monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Further, the federal 27 court has an independent duty to ensure it has subject matter jurisdiction in the case. See United 28 Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). 1 I. Screening Standard 2 Pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th 3 Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post–Iqbal). The federal in forma pauperis 4 statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” 5 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 6 who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Prior to dismissal, the court is to tell 7 the plaintiff of deficiencies in the complaint and provide an opportunity to cure––if it appears at 8 all possible the defects can be corrected. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 9 2000) (en banc). However, if amendment would be futile, no leave to amend need be given. 10 Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996). 11 A claim may be dismissed because of the plaintiff’s “failure to state a claim upon which 12 relief can be granted.” Rule 12(b)(6). A complaint fails to state a claim if it either lacks a 13 cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to allege a cognizable legal theory. Mollett v. Netflix, 14 Inc., 795 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2015). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a 15 complaint must contain more than “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions,” or “a formulaic 16 recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 17 555-57 (2007). In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 18 supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 19 (2009). Thus, a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a 20 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff 21 pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 22 liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. 23 When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 24 the court must accept the well-pled factual allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 25 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Papasan v. 26 Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 283 (1986). The court is not, however, required to accept as true 27 “conclusory [factual] allegations that are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint,” 28 or “legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations.” Paulsen v. 1 CNF Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 This action proceeds on the first amended complaint (FAC), filed shortly after this action 3 was initiated.1 ECF No. 3. The FAC names one defendant, Terranova Law Group, and “seeks 4 relief for the infliction of emotional distress (IIED) caused by Terranova, a court-ordered 5 program, and their insurer.” ECF No. 3 at 1. Plaintiff has attached documents relating to a 6 similar case in Sacramento County Superior Court where he also sued Terranova. ECF No. 3 at 7 9-12. It appears that this court case was ongoing in December 2024, when plaintiff filed the FAC 8 in the instant case. 9 Plaintiff’s brief and conclusory allegations against Terranova and claim of infliction of 10 emotional distress, a state cause of action, do not state a federal claim. The federal courts are 11 courts of limited jurisdiction, and there is no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction evident 12 in the complaint. Moreover, insofar as plaintiff seeks review of errors in his (apparently ongoing) 13 state court proceedings, a federal district court does not have jurisdiction to review errors in state 14 court decisions in civil cases. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 15 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923). “The district court lacks subject 16 matter jurisdiction either to conduct a direct review of a state court judgment or to scrutinize the 17 state court’s application of various rules and procedures pertaining to the state case.” Samuel v. 18 Michaud, 980 F. Supp. 1381, 1411-12 (D. Idaho 1996), aff’d, 129 F.3d 127 (9th Cir. 1997). See 19 also Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291-92 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding no subject matter jurisdiction 20 over section 1983 claim seeking, inter alia, implicit reversal of state trial court action); MacKay v. 21 Pfeil, 827 F.2d 540, 544-45 (9th Cir. 1987) (attacking state court judgment because substantive 22 defense improper under Rooker-Feldman). That the federal district court action alleges the state 23 court’s action was unconstitutional does not change the rule. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486. 24 In short, the FAC has jurisdictional and pleading deficiencies which do not appear curable 25 by amendment. Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that the FAC be dismissed 26 1 Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to 27 any prior pleading.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES SANDFORD, No. 2:24-cv-03343 DAD CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 TERRANOVA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff has requested authority pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. This proceeding was referred to this 19 court by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is unable 21 to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma 22 pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 23 However, the determination that a plaintiff may proceed without payment of fees does not 24 complete the inquiry. Under the IFP statute, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss any 25 claims that are “frivolous or malicious,” fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or 26 seek monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Further, the federal 27 court has an independent duty to ensure it has subject matter jurisdiction in the case. See United 28 Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). 1 I. Screening Standard 2 Pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th 3 Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post–Iqbal). The federal in forma pauperis 4 statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” 5 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 6 who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Prior to dismissal, the court is to tell 7 the plaintiff of deficiencies in the complaint and provide an opportunity to cure––if it appears at 8 all possible the defects can be corrected. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 9 2000) (en banc). However, if amendment would be futile, no leave to amend need be given. 10 Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996). 11 A claim may be dismissed because of the plaintiff’s “failure to state a claim upon which 12 relief can be granted.” Rule 12(b)(6). A complaint fails to state a claim if it either lacks a 13 cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to allege a cognizable legal theory. Mollett v. Netflix, 14 Inc., 795 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2015). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a 15 complaint must contain more than “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions,” or “a formulaic 16 recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 17 555-57 (2007). In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 18 supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 19 (2009). Thus, a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a 20 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff 21 pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 22 liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. 23 When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 24 the court must accept the well-pled factual allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 25 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Papasan v. 26 Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 283 (1986). The court is not, however, required to accept as true 27 “conclusory [factual] allegations that are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint,” 28 or “legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations.” Paulsen v. 1 CNF Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 This action proceeds on the first amended complaint (FAC), filed shortly after this action 3 was initiated.1 ECF No. 3. The FAC names one defendant, Terranova Law Group, and “seeks 4 relief for the infliction of emotional distress (IIED) caused by Terranova, a court-ordered 5 program, and their insurer.” ECF No. 3 at 1. Plaintiff has attached documents relating to a 6 similar case in Sacramento County Superior Court where he also sued Terranova. ECF No. 3 at 7 9-12. It appears that this court case was ongoing in December 2024, when plaintiff filed the FAC 8 in the instant case. 9 Plaintiff’s brief and conclusory allegations against Terranova and claim of infliction of 10 emotional distress, a state cause of action, do not state a federal claim. The federal courts are 11 courts of limited jurisdiction, and there is no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction evident 12 in the complaint. Moreover, insofar as plaintiff seeks review of errors in his (apparently ongoing) 13 state court proceedings, a federal district court does not have jurisdiction to review errors in state 14 court decisions in civil cases. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 15 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923). “The district court lacks subject 16 matter jurisdiction either to conduct a direct review of a state court judgment or to scrutinize the 17 state court’s application of various rules and procedures pertaining to the state case.” Samuel v. 18 Michaud, 980 F. Supp. 1381, 1411-12 (D. Idaho 1996), aff’d, 129 F.3d 127 (9th Cir. 1997). See 19 also Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291-92 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding no subject matter jurisdiction 20 over section 1983 claim seeking, inter alia, implicit reversal of state trial court action); MacKay v. 21 Pfeil, 827 F.2d 540, 544-45 (9th Cir. 1987) (attacking state court judgment because substantive 22 defense improper under Rooker-Feldman). That the federal district court action alleges the state 23 court’s action was unconstitutional does not change the rule. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486. 24 In short, the FAC has jurisdictional and pleading deficiencies which do not appear curable 25 by amendment. Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that the FAC be dismissed 26 1 Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to 27 any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, and once the first amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any 28 function in the case. 1 | prejudice. 2 II. Motion to Seal 3 Plaintiff has filed a motion to seal medical records. ECF No. 7. Because there is no viable 4 | complaint and no defendant has been served, the motion will be denied as moot. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; and 7 2. Plaintiff's motion to seal (ECF No. 7) is DENIED as moot; 8 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without leave to amend. 9 In light of these recommendations, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all pleading, 10 || discovery, and motion practice in this action are STAYED pending resolution of the findings and 11 || recommendations. With the exception of objections to the findings and recommendations and 12 | any non-frivolous motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any 13 || motions and other filings until the findings and recommendations are resolved. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 16 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 17 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 18 || to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 19 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 20 | Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 || Dated: February 5, 2025 / a8 } if | / p , Si 22 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 || 2/sand3343.screen f&rs