(TEMP)(PS)Sheikh v. Holland et al, No. 2:2015cv01773 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/28/2016 RECOMMENDING that the 2 Motion to Proceed IFP be denied; RECOMMENDING that the 1 Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend; RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed; REFERRING this matter to Judge Troy L. Nunley; ORDERING that any objections be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations. (Michel, G.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(TEMP)(PS)Sheikh v. Holland et al Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FARZANA SHEIKH, M.D., 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:15-cv-1773 TLN AC PS (TEMP) Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS HON. LESLIE D. HOLLAND, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Court, et al., Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Farzana Sheikh is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to 19 the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff 20 has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 21 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application, however, is incomplete. In this regard, when 22 asked to provide the amount of plaintiff’s take-home salary or wages and corresponding pay 23 period, plaintiff simply responded by writing “$20,000-$24,000.” ECF No. 2 at 1. It is unclear 24 how frequently plaintiff receives the amount stated as take-home salary or wages. 25 Moreover, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status 26 does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. “‘A district court may deny leave to 27 proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that 28 the action is frivolous or without merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)). See 2 also Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District Court to 3 examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine whether the 4 proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is without merit, the court is 5 bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”). 6 Moreover, the court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time if the allegation of 7 poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to 8 state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune 9 defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an 10 arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. 11 Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court must dismiss a 12 complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the 13 factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 14 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to 15 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 16 570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a cognizable claim, the court accepts as 17 true the material allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most 18 favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. 19 Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 20 (9th Cir. 1989). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by 21 lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true 22 conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western 23 Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). 24 25 26 27 28 The minimum requirements for a civil complaint in federal court are as follows: A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). 2 1 Here, plaintiff’s complaint names as defendants the Honorable Leslie D. Holland, 2 presiding judge of the San Joaquin County Court, the Honorable Thomas Harrington, judge of the 3 San Joaquin County Court and Rosa Junqueiro, commissioner/executive officer of the San 4 Joaquin County Court. ECF No. 1 at 1. The complaint alleges that these defendants “improperly 5 issued an Eviction order/Writ of Execution evicting [plaintiff] from her” mobile home located on 6 the premises of the San Joaquin County General Hospital. ECF No. 1 at 2. In this regard, the 7 complaint states that this action concerns “Two San Joaquin County Court Cases,” identified as 8 San Joaquin County Case Numbers 39-2009-0022-30338-CU-WM-STK and 39-2010-00236762- 9 C-UD-TRA. Id. 10 Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine a federal district court is precluded from hearing 11 “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments 12 rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and 13 rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 14 284 (2005). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies not only to final state court orders and 15 judgments, but to interlocutory orders and non-final judgments issued by a state court as well. 16 Doe & Assoc. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001); Worldwide 17 Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 893 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1986). 18 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits “a direct appeal from the final judgment of a state 19 court,” Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2003), and “may also apply where the parties 20 do not directly contest the merits of a state court decision, as the doctrine prohibits a federal 21 district court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a 22 state court judgment.” Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008) 23 (internal quotation marks omitted). “A suit brought in federal district court is a ‘de facto appeal’ 24 forbidden by Rooker-Feldman when ‘a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly 25 erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that 26 decision.’” Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Noel, 341 F.3d 27 at 1164). See also Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he Rooker-Feldman 28 doctrine bars federal courts from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over a proceeding in 3 1 ‘which a party losing in state court’ seeks ‘what in substance would be appellate review of the 2 state judgment in a United States district court, based on the losing party’s claim that the state 3 judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights.’”) (quoting Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 4 997, 1005-06 (1994), cert. denied 547 U .S. 1111 (2006)). “Thus, even if a plaintiff seeks relief 5 from a state court judgment, such a suit is a forbidden de facto appeal only if the plaintiff also 6 alleges a legal error by the state court.” Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 2013). 7 [A] federal district court dealing with a suit that is, in part, a forbidden de facto appeal from a judicial decision of a state court must refuse to hear the forbidden appeal. As part of that refusal, it must also refuse to decide any issue raised in the suit that is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with an issue resolved by the state court in its judicial decision. 8 9 10 11 Doe, 415 F.3d at 1043 (quoting Noel, 341 F.3d at 1158). See also Exxon, 544 U.S. at 286 n. 1 (“a 12 district court [cannot] entertain constitutional claims attacking a state-court judgment, even if the 13 state court had not passed directly on those claims, when the constitutional attack [is] 14 ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state court’s judgment”) (citing Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482 n. 15 16)); Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898, 900 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003) (“claims raised in the 16 federal court action are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state court’s decision such that the 17 adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling or require the district court to 18 interpret the application of state laws or procedural rules”) (citing Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483 n. 16, 19 485). 20 21 22 23 Here, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes this federal district from hearing plaintiff’s federal action. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed. LEAVE TO AMEND The undersigned has carefully considered whether plaintiff may amend his pleading to 24 state a claim over which the court would have subject matter jurisdiction. “Valid reasons for 25 denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, and futility.” California 26 Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988). See also 27 Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) 28 (holding that while leave to amend shall be freely given, the court does not have to allow futile 4 1 amendments). In light of the deficiencies noted above and the nature of plaintiff’s allegations, the 2 undersigned finds that it would be futile to grant plaintiff leave to amend in this case. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 4 5 1. Plaintiff’s August 21, 2015 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied; 6 7 8 9 2. Plaintiff’s August 21, 2015 complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without leave to amend; and 3. This action be dismissed. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 11 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 12 objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to 13 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 14 objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal 15 the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 DATED: January 28, 2016 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
