Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04976/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04976-1/pdf.json

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

---

ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION – No. 16-cv-04976-LB

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

JAN VAN DUSEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CATHERINE D. PURCELL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-04976-LB

ORDER DIRECTING 

REASSIGNMENT; REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Re: ECF No. 29

This is a putatively in forma pauperis lawsuit. The plaintiff is a lawyer who was convicted of a 

felony for animal cruelty. She filed her initial complaint in August 2016 challenging the state bar’s 

interim suspension of her license to practice law while she appealed her conviction.1 The court 

dismissed her complaint before authorizing service for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and she appealed to the Ninth Circuit.2In 2017, the Ninth Circuit 

decided Williams v. King and required the consent of all defendants — including unserved 

defendants — before magistrate-judge jurisdiction vests. 875 F.3d 500, 503–04 (9th Cir. 2017)).3

 

1

See Order – No. 13-cv-05023-HSG, ECF No. 263 at 1. Record citations refer to material in the 

Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of 

documents.

2 Order – ECF No. 14 at 3: Notice of Appeal – ECF No. 15.

3 Notice of Appeal – ECF No. 15; Memorandum – ECF No. 20 at 2.

Case 3:16-cv-04976-EMC Document 30 Filed 03/11/19 Page 1 of 2
ORDER; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION – No. 16-cv-04976-LB 2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In this case, the Ninth Circuit applied Williams and remanded to this court for further proceedings 

because the undersigned dismissed the case without the consent of the unserved defendants.4

On remand, the plaintiff asked to amend her complaint and, after receiving several extensions, 

filed her amended complaint on December 20, 2019.5 The amended complaint challenges the state 

bar’s interim suspension of her license in 2014 and actual suspension of it in 2018.6

For the reasons set forth in the attached order, the plaintiff’s complaint is barred for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 

413 (1923).

7 The plaintiff cannot collaterally attack the state-bar disciplinary actions in federal 

court. Mothershed v. Justices of the Supreme Court, 410 F.3d 602, 604 (9th Cir. 2005).

Because there are unserved defendants who cannot consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, 

the undersigned orders the clerk of court to reassign this case to a district judge and recommends 

that the newly assigned judge dismiss the complaint without leave to amend for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. Any party may file objections to this Report and Recommendation with the 

district judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(b); N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 72-3. Failure to file an objection may waive the right to review 

of the issue in the district court.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.

Dated: March 11, 2019

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

 

4 Van Dusan v. Purcell, No. 16-1683, Memorandum Opinion (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2018) – ECF No. 29-1 

at 2 (citing Williams, 875 F.3d at 503–04). 

5 Mot. – ECF No. 23 at 1; Orders – ECF No. 24, 26, 28; First Am. Compl. – ECF No. 29.

6 First Am. Compl. – ECF No. 29 at 3 (¶ 6).

7 Order – ECF No. at 3–4. The plaintiff also references a petition for certiorari that she planned to file 

to “decide matters that are also at issue in case 16-cv-04976,” which is this case. Mot. – ECF No. 27 at 

1. That presumably is some sort of appeal of the state-bar disciplinary proceedings and — for the 

reasons set forth in the earlier order — merit Younger abstention. Id. at 4–5.

Case 3:16-cv-04976-EMC Document 30 Filed 03/11/19 Page 2 of 2