-CMK (PS) Elliott v Sands et al, No. 2:2010cv00174 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 9/12/2011 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed; Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these F & R's. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
-CMK (PS) Elliott v Sands et al Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY ANDREW ELLIOTT, 12 13 14 No. CIV S-10-0174-LKK-CMK Plaintiff, vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1). The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 21 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915A(a). The court is also required to screen complaints brought by litigants who have been 23 granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under these screening 24 provisions, the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 25 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 26 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B) and 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h), this court must 2 dismiss an action “[w]henever it appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject 3 matter . . . .” Because plaintiff, who is not a prisoner, has been granted leave to proceed in forma 4 pauperis, the court will screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant to Rule 12(h), 5 the court will also consider as a threshold matter whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction. 6 In this case, plaintiff names as defendants California’s Contractor’s State License 7 Board, as well as various of its members and/or employees. Plaintiff’s lawsuit challenges a 8 decision by a state administrative law judge to deny him a state contractor’s license. Under the 9 Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine, federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear matters already 10 decided in state court. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of 11 Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The doctrine applies in cases 12 “brought by state court losers complaining of injuries caused by state court judgments rendered 13 before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection 14 of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005). 15 In essence, plaintiff seeks by way of this action a judgment from this court rejecting the bases for 16 denial of a contractor’s license. The court finds that it should abstain from exercising 17 jurisdiction. 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 2 1 2 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 4 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 7 objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 8 See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 10 11 12 DATED: September 12, 2011 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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.