Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02252/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02252-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL LOPEZ, 

AKA DANIEL LOPEZ JR.,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-02252-LJO-SMS

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

AND REMANDING TO 

CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT

(Docs. 2 and 3)

Plaintiff Daniel Lopez, proceeding pro se, has filed a notice removing this case (People of

the State of California v. Daniel Lopez, AKA Daniel Lopez Jr., No. 22450LT (Kern County,

March 4, 2010), from the California Superior Court, Kern County, to the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of California (“District Court”) (Doc. 2). Petitioner contends that

removal is appropriate in light of certain civil rights claims arising from the state case that

Plaintiff seeks to assert. This Court, sua sponte, hereby dismisses this case and remands it to the

California Superior Court since the District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over state

criminal prosecutions.

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to pursue his contentions of civil rights violations in the

course of his arrest or prosecution or both, this dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s

raising his federal civil rights claims in a separate federal action. Plaintiff is advised, however,

that because the State of California, its agencies, and state government employees acting in their

official capacities are not persons for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, such entities are not subject

1

Case 1:10-cv-02252-LJO -SMS Document 4 Filed 01/05/11 Page 1 of 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

to suit under § 1983. See, e.g., Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 69 (1997);

Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Doe v. Lawrence Livermore Nat’l

Lab., 131 F.3d 836, 839 (9 Cir. 1997). In addition, judges and officers whose functions are th

closely related to the judicial process are absolutely immune under § 1983 for acts performed in

their official capacities. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9 Cir. 1986 en banc); th

Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 156 (9 Cir. 1985). Similarly, prosecutorial immunity protects th

eligible government officials when they are acting pursuant to their official role as advocates for

the State performing functions “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal

process.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976).

This Court further reminds Plaintiff that the federal district court is not the appropriate

court for an appeal of his state court conviction, if that is his intent. Should Plaintiff wish to

challenge the order(s) or judgment(s) of the state court, he must file an appeal with the appellate

division of the state court. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,

482-86 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923).

This action is HEREBY REMANDED to the Superior Court of California. The Clerk of

Court is hereby directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-02252-LJO -SMS Document 4 Filed 01/05/11 Page 2 of 2