Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00931/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00931-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KURT KAYWOOD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DAVID KILGORE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-00931-DJC-SCR 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Upon the screening of 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, this action should be dismissed without further leave to 

amend. 

I. Background and Procedural History 

 On September 18, 2024, this Court screened the complaint per the screening process 

required by the IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and concluded the complaint failed to comply with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, failed to plead a sufficient basis for jurisdiction, and failed to 

state a claim. ECF No. 4. The screening order further set forth that if Plaintiff was attempting to 

challenge a state court award of child support, this Court would lack jurisdiction to review it 

under the Rooker Feldman doctrine. ECF No. 4 at 5. The Court’s order allowed Plaintiff 30 days 

to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies and stated the amended complaint “must 

Case 2:24-cv-00931-DJC-SCR Document 9 Filed 12/27/24 Page 1 of 6
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 

include a sufficient jurisdictional statement and comply with Rule 8.” ECF No. 4 at 6. The Order 

warned that noncompliance may result in a recommendation of dismissal. Id. 

 On October 16, 2024, Plaintiff responded to the Order by filing a motion for leave to file 

electronically (ECF No. 5) and motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 6). On October 29, 

2024, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause which directed Plaintiff to show cause why the 

action should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction and/or failure to state 

a claim. ECF No. 7. The Order warned: “If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the 

Court will recommend that the action be dismissed.” ECF No. 7. Plaintiff responded by 

contacting the Clerk’s Office on October 30, 2024, and asking the Clerk’s office to change the 

name of his motion for summary judgment to “amended complaint and motion for summary 

judgment.” Plaintiff then filed a Notice confirming that he had contacted the Clerk’s office, 

stating there was a “clerical error” in the original description of ECF No. 6 and requesting the 

name of the document be changed to include “amended complaint.” 

II. Analysis 

 The Court will construe Plaintiff’s “Amended Request and Request for Summary 

Judgment under Judicial Notice Constitutional Rights and Protections or (a Speedy Trial by 

Impartal [sic] Jury” (ECF No. 6) as the first amended complaint (hereafter “FAC”). The FAC 

does not cure the deficiencies set forth in the Court’s prior screening order. The FAC does not 

contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason 

the case is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing 

that plaintiff is entitled to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a 

demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims are not set forth simply, 

concisely and directly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 

 Plaintiff states that in 2003 he was made aware of an unconstitutional ex parte meeting. 

FAC at ¶ 2. Plaintiff states his daughter was treated as property of the state and his parental rights 

were infringed. Id. at ¶ 3. During some vaguely described prior judicial proceeding, Plaintiff was 

removed from the courtroom. Id. at ¶ 4. Plaintiff claims that the Department of Child Support 

Services violated his constitutional rights by placing his daughter into the public system. Id. at ¶ 

Case 2:24-cv-00931-DJC-SCR Document 9 Filed 12/27/24 Page 2 of 6
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 

3 

6. Plaintiff alleges he was compelled to submit to drug testing and his ability to travel was 

restricted. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. Plaintiff does not allege who compelled him, or how or why his ability 

to obtain a driver’s license or travel was impaired. Plaintiff then alleges that when he obtained 

and reviewed the court file years later, he discovered that “no fees were to be charged”—which 

the Court understands to be an allegation that the court file indicated he should not have been

charged fees in that case—and that “is the basis for the current court action.” Id. at ¶¶ 9-10. 

Paragraphs 11 thru 15 of the FAC then largely repeat the allegations of paragraphs 6 thru 10. 

Plaintiff requests damages in the amount of $9,000 per minute as his “fee rate” for the time he has 

spent in court and preparing this case. Plaintiff attaches to the FAC nearly 40 pages of what are 

largely illegible copies of state court pleadings, apparently from a Solano County Superior Court 

family court proceeding. 

 Plaintiff has not addressed the deficiencies raised in the earlier screening order (ECF No. 

4). The FAC fails to comply with Rule 8 and fails to state a claim. There are no allegations in 

the FAC about specific defendants. There is no jurisdictional statement to address the Court’s 

concerns about subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff appears to complain of state family court 

proceedings. If that is what Plaintiff asserts, then this court would lack jurisdiction. Federal 

district courts do not have jurisdiction to review final state court judgments. See Rooker v. Fid. 

Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents “a party losing in state 

court ... from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a 

United States district court.” Henrich v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 611 (9th Cir. 2009); See 

also Ignacio v. Judges of U.S. Court of Appeals, 453 F.3d 1160, 1165-66 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(affirming dismissal “because the complaint is nothing more than another attack on the California 

superior court’s determination in [the plaintiff’s] domestic case”). Family law and child support 

proceedings are traditional matters of state law for determination in state court, and Plaintiff has 

not adequately alleged a basis for federal jurisdiction. See Scharfenberger v. Jacques, 2020 WL 

589421 (E.D. Cal. Fed. 6, 2020) (“The court is without jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims under 

the ‘domestic relations’ exception to federal jurisdiction because they concern child support 

payments, which are exclusively matters of state law.”) (citing Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 

Case 2:24-cv-00931-DJC-SCR Document 9 Filed 12/27/24 Page 3 of 6
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 

4 

689, 702-04 (1992)). 

 Additionally, due to the vagueness of Plaintiff’s FAC, it is unclear when the events of 

which he complains occurred. However, Plaintiff does make reference to proceedings in 2003. 

To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert a constitutional violation under § 1983, the statute of 

limitations for such claim in California is two-years. See Nance v. Ward, 597 U.S. 159, 174 

(2022) (“[A]ll § 1983 suits must be brought within a State’s statute of limitations for personalinjury actions.”); Holt v. County of Orange, 91 F.4th 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 2024). 

 As the Court advised in the earlier screening order, in order to state a claim on which 

relief may be granted, a plaintiff must allege enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the 

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.  A pro se litigant should 

be given leave to amend the complaint, and some notice of the deficiencies, unless it is clear the 

deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 

(9th Cir. 1995). 

 Further leave to amend should not be granted. Plaintiff’s original Complaint was 133-

pages long and a mishmash of various documents. ECF No. 1. It appeared that Plaintiff may 

have been requesting to remove a family court matter to federal court and some of the documents 

submitted with the Complaint pertained to child support. The Complaint was convoluted and 

contained frivolous assertions such as there have been no courts or judges in America since 1789. 

ECF No. 1 at 20. The FAC contains further positions baldly unsupported by law, such as seeking 

$9,000 per minute in damages for his work on this case. Most significantly, it is clear that 

Plaintiff wants this court to second guess in some way a state court judgment in a family law 

matter, and one that may be decades old. For reasons explained in the prior screening order and 

above, the Court lacks jurisdiction to do that. The Court concludes that granting further leave to 

amend would be futile. See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 

(9th Cir. 1999) (“Where the legal basis for a cause of action is tenuous, futility supports the 

refusal to grant leave to amend.”); Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 

Case 2:24-cv-00931-DJC-SCR Document 9 Filed 12/27/24 Page 4 of 6
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 

5 

1072 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that “the district court's discretion to deny leave to amend is 

particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint” (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted)). 

III. Conclusion 

 The FAC thus does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1)-(2) as it does 

not contain a “short and plain” statement setting forth the grounds for federal jurisdiction, or a 

short and plain statement showing Plaintiff’s entitlement to relief. The exact nature of what 

happened to Plaintiff is unclear from the FAC. There are no allegations as to any specific 

defendant. The court cannot tell from examining the FAC what legal wrong was done to 

Plaintiff, by whom and when, or how any alleged harm is connected to the relief Plaintiff seeks. 

It also appears that Plaintiff seeks to have this Court do something that it is not permitted to: 

review a state court family law judgment. 

Accordingly, the FAC does not establish federal jurisdiction, does not comply with Rule 

8, and fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Having previously granted leave to 

amend, the Court determines that further leave to amend would be futile. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT: 

1. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2) without further leave to amend, and to the extent Plaintiff seeks summary 

judgment (ECF No. 6) that motion be DENIED; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file electronically (ECF No. 5) be DENIED as moot on 

account of the prospective dismissal of this action; and 

3. The Clerk be directed to close this file. 

 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, either party may file written 

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

Case 2:24-cv-00931-DJC-SCR Document 9 Filed 12/27/24 Page 5 of 6
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 

6 

specified time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 26, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-00931-DJC-SCR Document 9 Filed 12/27/24 Page 6 of 6