(PS) Bledsoe v. San Joaquin County Superior Court et al, No. 2:2023cv00158 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/16/2023 ADOPTING 4 Findings and Recommendations in full. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. CASE CLOSED. (Perdue, C.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONNELL BLEDSOE, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 2:23-cv-00158-DAD-KJN Plaintiff, v. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION (Doc. No. 4) Defendants. Plaintiff Donnell Bledsoe, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil 18 action on January 26, 2023. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 6, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and issued 21 findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice 22 because this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this action, the crux of which is 23 plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with a state court decision regarding disputed ownership over a house 24 and subsequent eviction from that house. (Doc. No. 4 at 3–4.) In addition, the magistrate judge 25 noted that complete diversity does not exist among the parties in this case, and “plaintiff’s 26 allegation regarding negligence in the proceedings over the house is not a federal question.” (Id.) 27 The magistrate judge also recommended that this action be dismissed without leave to amend 28 because any purported civil rights claims plaintiff may intend to bring under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 1 1 cannot be maintained against the state court judge and court staff whom plaintiff has named as 2 defendants in this action. (Id. at 4.) Those findings and recommendations were served on 3 plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 4 days of service. (Id. at 5.) On April 11, 2023, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings 5 and recommendations. (Doc. No. 5.) 6 In his objections, plaintiff does not meaningfully address the analysis in the findings and 7 recommendations. Rather, plaintiff merely reiterates his dissatisfaction that the state superior 8 court did not address his affirmative defense of sovereign immunity in the underlying state court 9 proceedings regarding ownership of the house at issue, and his frustration that one of the 10 witnesses in that action allegedly committed perjury. (Id. at 2–4.) Both of these grievances, 11 however, were addressed in the findings and recommendations and were properly found to be 12 irrelevant as to the question of whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. 13 For these reasons, plaintiff’s objections do not provide any basis upon which to reject the pending 14 findings and recommendations. 15 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 16 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 17 objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 18 record and by proper analysis. 19 Accordingly, 20 1. 21 The findings and recommendations issued on April 6, 2023 (Doc. No. 4) are adopted in full; 22 2. 23 This action is dismissed with prejudice due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and 24 3. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. May 16, 2023 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 2

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.