Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02559/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02559-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

27

28

- 1 - 11cv2559 WQH BLM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD A. SHAPIRO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv2559 WQH BLM

ORDER

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are (1) the Cause of Action for Violation of 42 U.S.C. §

1983 and Motion for Rehearing (ECF No. 6); and (2) the Motion for Stay of All Penalties

(ECF No. 8) filed by Plaintiff Richard A. Shapiro.

On November 3, 2011, Plaintiff Shapiro, a nonprisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this

action by filing the Complaint and the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”).

(ECF Nos. 1-2). On November 8, 2011, the Court granted the Motion for Leave to Proceed

in Forma Pauperis and dismissed the Complaint stating: 

After granting IFP status, the Court must dismiss the case if the

case “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted” or is

“frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

The standard used to evaluate a motion to dismiss is a liberal

one, particularly when the action has been filed pro se. See Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 (1976). However, even a “liberal

interpretation ... may not supply elements of the claim that were not

initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d

266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

...

Case 3:11-cv-02559-WQH-BLM Document 9 Filed 12/14/11 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

1

 The Court construes the Cause of Action for Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

Motion for Rehearing as a Motion to Re-Open the Case and a Proposed First Amended

Complaint asserting violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

- 2 - 11cv2559 WQH BLM

The Complaint contains rambling allegations lacking an arguable basis

in fact or law .... The Court dismisses the Complaint as frivolous

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I).

(ECF No. 3 at 2-3). On November 9, 2011, the case was closed. 

On December 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Cause of Action for Violation of 42 U.S.C. §

1983 and Motion for Rehearing.1

 (ECF No. 6). The Proposed First Amended Complaint

alleges that the state “trial court Pro Tem dismissed the testimony” of Plaintiff’s witness and

refused to hear audio tape produced by Plaintiff. The Pro Tem “refused to grant [Plaintiff]

community service after finding him guilty of not putting on his blinker.” (ECF No. 6 at 2).

Plaintiff alleges that “The appellate division refused to make allowances for extraordinary

circumstances in filing [Plaintiff’s] appeal....” Id. Plaintiff alleges that the appellate division

refused to hear his matter. On December 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Stay of All

Penalties. (ECF No. 8). The Motion for Stay of All Penalties states that Plaintiff is unable to

pay “this blinker ticket ... [and] requests herein that all penalties by stayed until this matter is

finalized in the District Court ....” (ECF No. 8 at 1). 

“[A] United States District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state

court in judicial proceedings.” District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S.

462, 482 (1983) (explaining that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the

claim and a “[r]eview of such judgments may be had only in [the Supreme] Court.”); see also

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (“Rooker-Feldman”); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d

1148, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003); Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 892-93 (9th

Cir. 1986). “If a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by

a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that decision,

Rooker-Feldman bars subject matter jurisdiction in federal district court.” Mooney v. Boli,

Case No. C 06-7875 SI, 2007 WL 781973 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2007).

There are two statutory exceptions to the principle that district courts may not review

Case 3:11-cv-02559-WQH-BLM Document 9 Filed 12/14/11 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

- 3 - 11cv2559 WQH BLM

state court judgments including: (1) petitions for writ of habeas corpus brought by state

prisoners who claim that the state court has made an error of federal law; and (2) bankruptcy

courts modifying, avoiding, or discharging state judgments. Noel, 341 F.3d at 1155 (citations

omitted). 

In this case, Plaintiff has filed a Cause of Action for Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

seeking review of a final judgment of the state court. The Court concludes that it does not

have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Proposed First Amended Complaint. The

Court concludes that this case does not fit a statutory exception permitting the exercise of

jurisdiction on the grounds that the case is not a petition for writ of habeas corpus and the case

is not a bankruptcy appeal. Accordingly, the Motion to Re-Open the Case and file the

Proposed First Amended Complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is DENIED. The

Motion for Stay of All Penalties is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Cause of Action for Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

and Motion for Rehearing (ECF No. 6) is DENIED. The Motion for Stay of All Penalties

(ECF No. 8) is DENIED as moot. 

DATED: December 14, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02559-WQH-BLM Document 9 Filed 12/14/11 Page 3 of 3