Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01724/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01724-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY NICKS, No. CIV.S-06-1724 GEB DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER AND

COMPUSA and AMERICAN HOME FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ASSURANCE,

Defendants.

____________________________/

This matter came before the court on December 1, 2006, for

hearing on the following motions: (1) defendant American Home

Assurance Company’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,

or in the alternative for a more definite statement; (2) defendant

CompUSA, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim; and (3) defendant

Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board’s motion to dismiss for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The

matter also came on for a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference,

Case 2:06-cv-01724-GEB-DAD Document 51 Filed 12/04/06 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 This court lacking subject matter jurisdiction, the 1

undersigned does not reach defendants’ numerous arguments as to why

plaintiff has failed to state a claim.

2

which was vacated at the time of the hearing in light of the

recommendations herein. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, appeared on

his own behalf. Cherie Sutherland appeared on behalf of defendant

American Home Assurance Company. D. Gregory Valenza appeared on

behalf of defendant CompUSA, Inc. Neil P. Sullivan appeared on

behalf of defendant Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. The

undersigned has considered all written materials submitted in

connection with the motions and heard oral argument. For the reasons

set forth below, it is recommended the motions to dismiss for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction be granted and this entire action be

dismissed.1

Plaintiff initiated this action by paying the appropriate

filing fee and filing a complaint on August 4, 2006. Plaintiff filed

an amended complaint on August 14, 2006. On August 16, 2006, the

undersigned issued an order to show cause why the court should not

dismiss the action as preempted by the California Workers'

Compensation Act. On August 31 and September 7, 2006, respectively,

plaintiff filed documents styled “Amended Complaint and Reply to Show

Cause” and “Amended to Show Cause.” The court discharged the order

to show cause. Defendants have now moved to dismiss plaintiff’s

action.

This action arises out of injuries allegedly sustained by

plaintiff while working at a computer retail store due to carbon

Case 2:06-cv-01724-GEB-DAD Document 51 Filed 12/04/06 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

monoxide poisoning and subsequent workers’ compensation proceedings

with respect to plaintiff’s claims. The amended complaint filed on

August 14, 2006, alleges that defendants “denied additional

temporary, residual permanent disability and ongoing medical care”

based on “insubstantial opinions” of various physicians and other

“fraudulent evidence.” (Am. Compl. at 2.) Defendants are

plaintiff’s former employer, its workers’ compensation insurance

carrier and the state Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. The

amended complaint alleges no basis for federal jurisdiction and

contains no discernible causes of action. However, the “Amended

Complaint and Reply to Show Cause” purports to assert due process and

equal protection claims based on plaintiff’s race, color, gender, age

and disability as well as vague claims under the Civil Rights Act of

1870 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The “Amended to Show

Cause” filed by plaintiff additionally references the Thirteenth

Amendment. Plaintiff seeks the following relief in this action: “(1)

Temporary disability indemnity from April 3, 2001, to date and

continuing. (2) Permanent disability. (3) Liability for selfproduced medical treatment. (4) Need for further medical treatment. 

(5) Lien claim of the Employment Development Department. (6) Damages

in the amount of Eighty Million ($80,000,000.00) Dollars.” (Am.

Compl. at 6.) 

Turning to the motions to dismiss, defendants persuasively

argue that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Under the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal district court does not have

subject matter jurisdiction over challenges to state court decisions. 

Case 2:06-cv-01724-GEB-DAD Document 51 Filed 12/04/06 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Defendants’ request that the court take judicial notice of the 2

workers’ compensation proceedings and California Supreme Court’s

decision is hereby granted.

4

See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of

Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); see also

Bennett v. Yoshina, 140 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 1998). This

doctrine applies even where the challenge to the state court decision

involves federal constitutional issues. Worldwide Church of God v.

McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 891 (9th Cir. 1986). Finally, the doctrine

encompasses cases in which the issues presented to the federal court

are not identical to but are "inextricably intertwined" with

determinations made by the state court. See Feldman, 460 U.S. at

483-84 n.16; Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218,

221-22 (9th Cir. 1994).

Here, there is no dispute that plaintiff obtained a final

decision in his workers' compensation case, that he appealed that

final decision and that his appeal was rejected by the California

Supreme Court. This action therefore is an impermissible collateral 2

attack on the state workers' compensation proceedings and the

decision of the California Supreme Court rejecting plaintiff’s

appeal. To rule in plaintiff’s favor, this court would have to find

those decisions to be erroneous. Indeed, in the August 31, 2006,

response to the court’s order to show cause, plaintiff asks that this

court “[r]ender the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board’s

unlawful Findings and Order null and void.” (Doc. no. 6 at 3.) 

Thus, plaintiff's federal claims are inextricably intertwined with

Case 2:06-cv-01724-GEB-DAD Document 51 Filed 12/04/06 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

the state court's decision. See Doe & Associates Law Offices v.

Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001)(“Where the district

court must hold that the state court was wrong in order to find in

favor of the plaintiff, the issues presented to both courts are

inextricably intertwined.”); Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291-92

(9th Cir. 1995) (finding no subject matter jurisdiction over § 1983

claim seeking, inter alia, implicit reversal of state trial court

action). See also Tsabbar v. Booth, 293 F. Supp. 2d 328, 334 (S.D.

N.Y. 2003) (finding plaintiff's charges that justices and judges

involved in his state court cases acted inappropriately barred by

Rooker-Feldman doctrine). Because plaintiff’s action implicates

federal claims that are inextricably intertwined with a state court

decision, it must be dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

The court notes that defendant American Home Assurance

Company has not moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the court “may properly on its own

motion dismiss an action as to defendants who have not moved to

dismiss where such defendants are in a position similar to that of

moving defendants or where claims against such defendants are

integrally related.” Silverton v. Dep’t of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341,

1345 (9th Cir. 1981). See also Omar v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 813

F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Such a dismissal may be made without

notice where the plaintiff cannot possibly win relief.”). Here, all

of the named defendants are similarly situated to the moving

defendants with respect to this court’s lack of subject matter

Case 2:06-cv-01724-GEB-DAD Document 51 Filed 12/04/06 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

jurisdiction. Therefore, dismissal as to all named defendants is

appropriate at this time.

Finally, plaintiff has made a number of requests for the

appointment of counsel, asserting that his alleged physical and

mental disabilities frustrate his abilities to represent himself in

this matter. However, plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis

such that the court has discretion to request an attorney to

represent him. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Nor is this a Title VII

action in which the court may appoint counsel. See Bradshaw v.

Zoological Soc’y of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Moreover, even assuming either of those standards applied, there has

been no showing demonstrating plaintiff’s likelihood of success on

the merits warranting the appointment of counsel. See Johnson v.

U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilborn v.

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, the request

for appointment of counsel will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request

for appointment of counsel is denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motions to

dismiss be granted and this entire action be dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. 

Case 2:06-cv-01724-GEB-DAD Document 51 Filed 12/04/06 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure

to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 4, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\nicks1724.f&r

Case 2:06-cv-01724-GEB-DAD Document 51 Filed 12/04/06 Page 7 of 7