Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01984/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01984-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 900
Nature of Suit: Appeal of Fee Determination - Equal Access to Justice
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS RODRIGUEZ HUERTA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COURT OF APPEAL,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-01984 JSW

ORDER DENYING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS; AND

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

PREJUDICE

This Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Jesus Rodriguez Huerta’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis submitted on October 20, 2005. Having considered the papers filed in support of the

request, the Court finds the matter appropriate for decision on the papers, and rules as follows. 

The Court has determined that the application should be DENIED at this time because this

action must be dismissed for the reasons stated below.

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).

California superior courts are courts of general, unlimited jurisdiction and can render

enforceable judgments in practically any type of case. However, federal courts have limited 
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California 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

2

jurisdiction. Federal courts can only adjudicate cases which the Constitution or Congress

authorize them to adjudicate: those cases involving diversity of citizenship (where the parties

are from diverse states), or a federal question, or those cases to which the United States 

is a party. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375

(1994). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil cases and the burden of

establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. at 377. 

Plaintiff appears to be challenging the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals

Board (“Board”) denial of benefits and the California Court of Appeal’s subsequent denial of

review of the Board’s decision. Federal district courts, as courts of original jurisdiction, do not

have subject matter jurisdiction to review errors allegedly committed by state courts. Rooker v.

Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923) (“The jurisdiction possessed by the District Courts

is strictly original.”); D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983) (“[A] United States

District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial

proceedings.”). 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. Accordingly, the Court initially dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, but gave Plaintiff

leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on October 20, 2005. Again, Plaintiff’s

Second Amended Complaint is challenging the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals

Board. Because federal district courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to review errors

allegedly committed by state courts, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE