(PS) Gonzalez v. State of California, No. 2:2015cv01642 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/31/15: RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without leave to amend. Motion to proceed IFP 2 be denied as moot and the Clerk of Court be dire cted to close this case. ORDERING that all pleading, discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of these findings and recommendations. F&R referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL MARIN GONZALEZ, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-1642-MCE-KJN PS v. ORDER AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 16 Defendant. 17 Plaintiff Raul Marin Gonzalez, who proceeds in this action without counsel, has requested 18 19 leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.)1 Pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915, the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if it determines that the 21 allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 22 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 23 For the reasons discussed below, the court concludes that it lacks subject matter 24 jurisdiction over this action, and that further leave to amend would be futile. As such, the court 25 recommends that the action be dismissed without leave to amend and that plaintiff’s application 26 to proceed in forma pauperis be denied as moot. 27 28 1 This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 1 A federal court has an independent duty to assess whether federal subject matter 2 jurisdiction exists, whether or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. 3 Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court had a duty 4 to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties 5 raised the issue or not”); accord Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996). 6 The court must sua sponte dismiss the case if, at any time, it determines that it lacks subject 7 matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A federal district court generally has original 8 jurisdiction over a civil action when: (1) a federal question is presented in an action “arising 9 under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” or (2) there is complete diversity of 10 11 citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). Here, plaintiff’s complaint, although vague and confusing, appears to allege that a state 12 Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board judge improperly denied plaintiff workers’ compensation 13 benefits, and thereby violated several of plaintiff’s rights and also committed unspecified felony 14 crimes. Plaintiff seeks $20,000,000.00 in damages from the State of California, presumably 15 because it employs the judge. (See generally Complaint, ECF No. 1.) 16 As an initial matter, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, because plaintiff’s 17 complaint does not assert any federal claims, and there is no complete diversity of citizenship 18 (with both plaintiff and defendant being citizens of California). 19 Moreover, even if plaintiff attempted to assert federal claims associated with the denial of 20 workers’ compensation benefits at issue here, this action would amount to a forbidden de facto 21 appeal of a state court decision. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 531 (2011) (explaining that the 22 Rooker-Feldman doctrine forbids a losing party in state court from filing suit in federal district 23 court complaining of an injury caused by a state court judgment, and seeking federal court review 24 and rejection of that judgment). Here, plaintiff alleges numerous errors and violations of his 25 rights during the state workers’ compensation proceedings, and resolution of plaintiff’s claims in 26 this case would plainly require a review of the merits of the state Workers’ Compensation 27 Appeals Board judge’s decisions. Plaintiff’s action is thus a forbidden de facto appeal to federal 28 court. Instead, plaintiff’s proper recourse for any error is an appeal to the appropriate California 2 1 superior and appellate courts, during which plaintiff may attempt to raise any alleged violation of 2 his state or federal rights. 3 Therefore, the court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 4 Ordinarily, the court liberally grants a pro se plaintiff leave to amend. However, because 5 the record shows that plaintiff would be unable to cure the above-mentioned deficiencies through 6 further amendment of the complaint, the court concludes that granting leave to amend in this case 7 would be futile. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 9 1. The action be dismissed without leave to amend. 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this case (ECF No. 2) be denied as 10 11 moot. 12 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 13 In light of these recommendations, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all pleading, 14 discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of these findings and 15 recommendations. Other than objections to the findings and recommendations or non-frivolous 16 motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any pleadings or motions 17 until the findings and recommendations are resolved. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 20 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 21 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 22 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 23 shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 24 objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 25 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 26 Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 27 //// 28 //// 3 1 2 IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. Dated: August 31, 2015 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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.