Sachs v. Bergin

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: May 31, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00635
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Kenneth Sachs, No. CV-22-00635-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Dawn Bergin, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 The Court has an independent obligation to determine whether it has subject-matter 16 jurisdiction. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). Pursuant to 17 Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f the court determines at any 18 time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Although 19 “a plaintiff’s assertion of an invalid federal cause of action does not always implicate the 20 existence of subject-matter jurisdiction,” dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction 21 based on “the inadequacy of the federal claim” is proper “when the [federal] claim is so 22 insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise 23 completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” Robinson v. Aetna 24 Life Ins. Co., 2021 WL 2138778, *4 (D. Ariz. 2021) (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a 25 Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998)). For the reasons stated below, the complaint is 26 dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 27 Plaintiff Kenneth Sachs appears to be distraught about a family court action that 28 occurred in Maricopa County Superior Court and has filed seven complaints—including 1 this one—against individuals who were somehow involved in that family court decision. 2 For example, Plaintiff previously filed a complaint in this Court against his ex-wife’s 3 attorney, which was subsequently dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Sachs 4 v. Wees, 2022 WL 901415, *2 (D. Ariz. 2022). 5 Here, Plaintiff filed this action against his ex-wife and the now-retired judge who 6 presided over the family court action. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 1-2.) Plaintiff alleges that his ex-wife 7 and the judge violated his and his minor daughter’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 8 that “parental alienation” was “done by the judge which was not in the best interest of the 9 minor.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also alleges that there was a “violation of federal RICO laws” 10 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and raises “supplemental Arizona [s]tate claims for 11 common law fraud.” (Id. ¶ 4.) 12 It appears that the basis for Plaintiff’s claims arises from his ex-wife’s alleged 13 “money laundering, illicit internet activities, and child prostitution” and the allegation that 14 the judge “ignored some valuable evidence and proof against [Plaintiff’s ex-wife], which 15 shows that [the judge] has some ulterior motive behind the partial behavior towards 16 Plaintiff.” (Id. ¶¶ 1-2.) As for the relief sought, Plaintiff seeks: (1) “the federal courts 17 handle the matter rather than the family court due to the high chances of manipulation by 18 [his ex-wife]”; (2) monetary damages; (3) “[t]he rights of the minor as well as her custody 19 should be given to the plaintiff”; and (4) that this court “take action against [the judge] and 20 grant parental rights to Plaintiff, which is in the daughter’s [b]est [i]nterest.” (Id. ¶ 13.) 21 Although Plaintiff has asserted § 1983 and RICO claims, the purpose of this suit is 22 to appeal a family court decision. Plaintiff asks that the state court’s “ruling regarding 23 parent-time/legal decision making . . . be revoked and reversed.” (Id. ¶ 5.) He also alleges 24 that “[t]he judge did not follow A.R.S. statutes for the best interest of a child” and “asks 25 appeals court for full custody and legal decision making. And supervised visits only for 26 [his ex-wife] and reported to the proper authorities.” (Id. ¶ 51 [emphasis added].) 27 Plaintiff is clearly upset about his family situation and the child custody 28 arrangement that stemmed from the family court decision, but such matters must be 1 handled by state courts because “[f]ederal courts are not courts of general jurisdiction; they 2 have only the power that is authorized by Article III of the Constitution and the statutes 3 enacted by Congress pursuant thereto.” Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 4 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a well-established jurisdictional 5 rule prohibiting federal courts from exercising appellate review over final state court 6 judgments.” Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2008). 7 The Ninth Circuit has “recognized that ‘[t]he clearest case for dismissal based on 8 the Rooker-Feldman doctrine occurs when a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an 9 allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment 10 based on that decision.’” Id. at 859 (quoting Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 11 613 (9th Cir. 2007)). This is precisely what is occurring here–Plaintiff seeks review and 12 relief from a family court decision that occurred in Maricopa County Superior Court. (Doc. 13 1 ¶¶ 2,5, 51; see also id. at 13.) 14 Plaintiff cited § 1983 and the RICO statute in the complaint, but the Court “has no 15 jurisdiction over a claim, regardless of whether the claim is couched in federal terms, if the 16 claim is patently without merit, or so insubstantial, improbable, or foreclosed by Supreme 17 Court precedent as not to involve a federal controversy.” Ellis v. Corp., 2018 WL 6727259, 18 *3 (D. Ariz. 2018) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Here, Plaintiff cannot 19 properly allege a § 1983 claim because there is no allegation that his ex-wife was acting 20 under color of state law and judicial immunity bars Plaintiff from seeking monetary 21 damages from a state-court judge due to what he believes was an adverse ruling. Lemke v. 22 Jander, 2021 WL 778653, *4 (S.D. Cal. 2021); Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199- 23 200 (1985). 24 Plaintiff’s RICO claim is similarly insubstantial and frivolous. Plaintiff cites 18 25 U.S.C. § 1962(c), but it is § 1964(c) that provides a private cause of action. And “[t]o have 26 standing under § 1964(c), a civil RICO plaintiff must show: (1) that his alleged harm 27 qualifies as injury to his business or property; and (2) that his harm was ‘by reason of’ the 28 RICO violation, which requires the plaintiff to establish proximate causation.” Kraft v. || Gainey Ranch Cmty. Ass’n, 2020 WL 3639983, *2 (D. Ariz. 2020) (quoting Canyon Cty. 2|| v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 519 F.3d 969, 972 (9th Cir. 2008)). “Without a harm to a specific || business or property interest—a categorical inquiry typically determined by reference to 4|| state law—there is no injury to business or property within the meaning of RICO.” Td. 5|| (quoting Diaz v. Gates, 420 F.3d 897, 900 (9th Cir. 2005)). Plaintiff has not asserted any 6 || specific injury to his business or property because children are not property. Salmons v. 7\| Oregon, 2017 WL 4544597, *2 (D. Or. 2017). 8 Accordingly, 9 IT IS ORDERED that the complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for lack of subject- 10 || matter jurisdiction. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Doc. 8) and motion for alternative service (Doc. 10) are denied as moot. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 14 Dated this 27th day of May, 2022. 15 16 Lm ee” 17 f t _o—— Dominic W, Lanza 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-