Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06055/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06055-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ALFRED PANZER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SC HILLSIDE BERKELEY INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-06055-SK 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Regarding Docket Nos. 1, 2

On October 19, 2016, Plaintiff John Alfred Panzer filed an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”) and a Complaint. The Court may authorize a plaintiff to file an action in federal 

court without prepayment of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or 

she is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court finds that 

Plaintiff has demonstrated that he is unable to pay the filing fee and, thus, GRANTS his 

application for IFP. However, the in forma pauperis statute provides that the Court shall dismiss 

the case if, inter alia, the Complaint is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which 

relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Moreover, federal courts are under a duty to raise 

and decide issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time it appears subject matter 

jurisdiction may be lacking. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12; Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 

(9th Cir. 1983). If the Court determines that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court must 

dismiss the case. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Here, Plaintiff alleges that his landlord filed an unlawful detainer action against him in 

state court to evict him. It is unclear whether that state-court proceeding is still ongoing or is final. 

To the extent it is still ongoing, and Plaintiff is seeking to interfere with the state-court 

proceedings, the Court finds that it should abstain from adjudicating this matter pursuant to the 

Younger doctrine. In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court “espouse[d] a 

Case 3:16-cv-06055-SK Document 6 Filed 10/28/16 Page 1 of 3
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

strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings.” 

H.C. v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted). “Abstention is 

required when: ‘(i) the state proceedings are ongoing; (ii) the proceedings implicate important 

state interests; and (iii) the state proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise federal 

questions.’” Delta Dental Plan of California, Inc. v. Mendoza, 139 F.3d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 

1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted). To the extent Plaintiff alleges that the 

proceedings are still ongoing, the Court finds that all three prongs of the Younger test are satisfied 

here. 

To the extent the proceedings in state court have been completed, and Plaintiff is seeking 

to challenge a state-court judgment, Plaintiff’s claims would be barred by the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine. See, e.g., District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 487-87 

(1983) (“[A] United States District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state 

court in judicial proceedings.”); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923). The 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine “bars federal courts from ‘exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a 

suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment.’” Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 

363 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). 

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 a federal district court.

Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003). Instead, the proper court to obtain review of a 

final state court decision is the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257; Rooker, 263 

U.S. at 416; Feldman, 460 U.S. at 476.

“The purpose of the doctrine is to protect state judgments from collateral federal attack. 

Because district courts lack power to hear direct appeals from state court decisions, they must 

decline jurisdiction whenever they are ‘in essence called upon to review the state court decision.’” 

Doe & Associates Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 

Feldman, 460 U.S.at 482 n. 16). Where “the district court must hold that the state court was 

Case 3:16-cv-06055-SK Document 6 Filed 10/28/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

wrong in order to find in favor of the plaintiff, the issues presented are inextricably intertwined.” 

Id. (citations omitted). In such a case, the district court must not exercise jurisdiction to review 

the ruling of a state court. In order to provide Plaintiff with the relief he seeks – to order his 

landlord to allow him back into his home – the Court would have to find the state court wrong in 

granting the order of eviction. Therefore, pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court 

must decline to exercise jurisdiction.

Accordingly, because the Court will not interfere with ongoing state-court proceedings or 

exercise jurisdiction to review the rulings of a state court, the Court HEREBY DISMISSES the 

complaint. Moreover, because there are no claims that Plaintiff could assert over which the Court 

would have jurisdiction with respect to the state-court proceedings, the dismissal is with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2016

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-06055-SK Document 6 Filed 10/28/16 Page 3 of 3