(PS) Sandford v. Terranova

Opinion

JAMES SANDFORD, No. 2:24-cv-03343-DAD-CKD (PS) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING v. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO TERRANOVA, et al., AMEND Defendants. (Doc. No. 14) Plaintiff James Sandford, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action on December 2, 2024. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 6, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s first amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 14 at 3.) In particular, the magistrate judge determined that plaintiff appeared to be seeking review of a state court judgment that this court cannot exercise jurisdiction over pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (Id.) The magistrate judge further determined that plaintiff’s claim on infliction of emotional distress was based solely on state law and that this court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. (Id.) The magistrate judge concluded that these jurisdictional and pleading deficiencies were not curable by amendment. (Id. at 3–4.) The findings and recommendations were served upon plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 4.) On February 11, 2025, plaintiff timely filed his objections to the pending findings and recommendations. In his objections, plaintiff reiterates various allegations made in his first amended complaint, makes a baseless and frivolous assertion of judicial bias, and argues that his conclusory allegations suffice to state a federal claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 15 at 3–5.) However, none of these arguments address the basis upon which the assigned magistrate judge recommended dismissal, namely this court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff appears to argue that this court can overlook its own lack of jurisdiction. (Id. at 4.) However, “[t]he requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter is inflexible and without exception; for jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.” Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2017) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577 (1999)). Plaintiff’s objections therefore do not provide any basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations.1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. ///// 1 The court also notes that plaintiff appears to have filed a second amended complaint without first obtaining leave from the court to do so. (Doc. No. 16.) The undersigned has reviewed that second amended complaint and determined that it does not remedy the jurisdictional defects that the findings and recommendations issued identified in plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (See, e.g., Doc. No. 16 at 4) (alleging plaintiff and defendants as being citizens of the same state); (Id. at 11) (appearing to seek relief on the basis of alleged defects in state court proceedings). The court therefore finds that the allegations in plaintiff’s second amended complaint, if construed as supplemental objections, also do not provide any basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations. Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 6, 2025 (Doc. No. 14) are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff's first amended complaint is dismissed, without leave to amend; and, 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. "| Dated: _ April 29, 2025 Dab A. 2, sxe UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE