Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01414/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01414-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

JONATHAN R. TYRELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1414 JAM GGH P

vs.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On January 18, 2008, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Defendant

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds Defendant’s objections to the findings and recommendations to be

persuasive and, therefore, does not adopt these findings and recommendations. Instead, the Court

Case 2:06-cv-01414-JAM-GGH Document 35 Filed 09/24/08 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

2

finds that it lacks jurisdiction in this case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. This doctrine is

derived from the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 412 (1923). The rule

states that “[a]s courts of original jurisdiction, the federal district court lacks jurisdiction to

review the final determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings.” In other words, federal

district courts do not sit as appellate courts for the purpose of reviewing state court decisions.

Rooker-Feldman prevents a federal court from overturning legal decisions of a state court. This is

the case here. The authority over plaintiff’s property has always been subject to the orders of the

Placer County Superior Court. Plaintiff can petition that Court for the return of his property

pursuant to Penal Code sections 1536, 1538.5 and by way of non-statutory motion. People v.

Superior Court (Laff), 25 Cal. 4 703 (2001). th

This Court further finds that, as a matter of law, it should abstain from

adjudicating this case under Burford abstention. Burford v. Sun Oil, 319 U.S. 313 (1943). This

rule “allows the courts to decline to rule on an essentially local issue arising out of a complicated

regulatory scheme”. United States v. Morros, 268 F. 3 695 (9 Cir. 2001). As noted above, in rd th

this case, plaintiff’s exclusive remedy lies with the Placer County Superior Court. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 18, 2008 are not adopted in

full; and

2. Defendant’s amended motion to dismiss, filed on May 14, 2007 (# 17), filed

with a notice of errata, on June 18, 2007 (# 20), is GRANTED.

DATED: September 24, 2008

/s/ John A. Mendez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/tyre1414.806

Case 2:06-cv-01414-JAM-GGH Document 35 Filed 09/24/08 Page 2 of 2