-CMK (PS) Elliott v Sands et al, No. 2:2010cv00174 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER DECLINING to ADOPT 4 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/22/2011. Magistrate Judge directed to determine whether there is any other basis for screening Complaint. (Marciel, M)
Download PDF
-CMK (PS) Elliott v Sands et al Doc. 5 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, Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 14 No. CIV S-10-0174-LKK-CMK ORDER REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 18 19 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On September 13, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 21 recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the 22 parties may file objections within a specified time. No objections to the findings and 23 recommendations have been filed. The court has reviewed the file declines to adopt the findings and 24 25 recommendations. 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The Magistrate Judge recommends that the action be dismissed on the basis that 2 the district court lacks jurisdiction to hear matters already decided in state court, pursuant to the 3 Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine. Under Rooker-Feldman, a federal district court “has no 4 authority to review the final determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings.” Worldwide 5 Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 890 (Ninth Cir. 1986) (citing D.C. Court of Appeals v. 6 Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1983)). In this case, plaintiff challenges a decision by the state 7 Contractors’ State License Board, an administrative agency. It is not clear whether, under 8 California law, such a decision is a final determination in a judicial proceeding and therefore 9 subject to Rooker-Feldman abstention. See, e.g., Zupan v. Cal. Dep't of Corps., 2010 U.S. Dist. 10 LEXIS 10623 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (holding that Rooker-Feldman abstention does not apply to a 11 decision by the California Department of Corporations because it is a state agency and not a state 12 court); Murray v. Dep't of Consumer & Bus. Servs., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96563 (D. Or. 2010) 13 (holding that Rooker-Feldman does apply where, under state law, the ALJ’s decision is a “final 14 order” when not appealed in state court). 15 16 The court therefore concludes that Rooker-Feldman abstention is not a basis for screening plaintiff’s complaint. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. September 13, 2011; 19 20 21 22 The court declines to adopt findings and recommendations filed 2. The Magistrate Judge is directed to determine whether there is any other basis for screening the complaint. DATED: December 22, 2011. 23 24 25 26 2