Weibel v. Boudin

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 MICHAEL L. WEIBEL, Case No. 21-cv-05529-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 9 v. DISMISS

10 CHESA BOUDIN, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 21, 26 Defendants. 11

12 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 28 13 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss arguing, inter alia, that Plaintiff’s 14 claims are barred for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 15 Plaintiff claims that a California Superior Court imposed a restitution fine of $5000 upon 16 him, in violation of California law. Defendants have presented state court records demonstrating 17 that this fine was imposed as part of a criminal judgment against him, which Plaintiff 18 unsuccessfully appealed in the California courts. 19 Federal district courts are without subject matter jurisdiction to review state court 20 decisions, and state court litigants may therefore only obtain federal review by filing a petition for 21 a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. See District of Columbia Court of 22 Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 23 (1923). This doctrine applies even when federal constitutional issues are at stake, which Plaintiff 24 claims here. See Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 (9th Cir. 1995). The doctrine bars “cases 25 brought by state court losers complaining of injuries caused by state court judgments rendered 26 before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of 27 those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). 1 specifically the judgment imposing a restitution fine. Therefore, under the Rooker-Feldman 2 doctrine, this Court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim. See, e.g., Ignacio v. 3 Armstrong, 453 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that federal court challenge to superior 4 court judgment about child custody and marital assets barred by Rooker-Feldman). This defect in 5 ) Plaintiff's claim cannot be fixed by amendment! 6 Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED. The complaint is DISMISSED without 7 leave to amend. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 9 Dated: April 22, 2022 10 a) / | 1 1 / l, i SF, JEFFREY /S, WHITE 12 United ftates Pstrict Jutdget

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' Tn light of this conclusion, the Court need not address Defendants’ alternative arguments.