Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02039/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02039-1/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

DARREL SMITH, No. CIV S-06-2039-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

L. PRINTZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil action apparently

seeking to challenge a decision of the California Supreme Court in plaintiff’s state court medical

malpractice action. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1), filed on

September 13, 2006.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court is also required to screen complaints brought by litigants who have been

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under these screening

provisions, the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

Case 2:06-cv-02039-GEB-CMK Document 5 Filed 10/12/06 Page 1 of 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

It appears that the Court of Appeal also concluded that the trial court had abused 1

its discretion in not allowing plaintiff an opportunity to amend. Plaintiff does not, however,

attach the last pages of the Court of Appeal’s decision. 

2

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B) and

1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h), this court must

dismiss an action “[w]henever it appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject 

matter . . . .” Because plaintiff is a state prisoner seeking relief against governmental employees,

the court will screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915A(a). Pursuant to Rule 12(h), the court

will also consider as a threshold matter whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction.

According to documents attached to plaintiff’s complaint, plaintiff filed a pro se

civil action in Solano County Superior Court against two prison doctors alleging medical

malpractice and other torts under state law. Defendants to the lawsuit were granted judgment on

the pleadings, and plaintiff appealed to the California Court of Appeal. On June 10, 2005, the

Court of Appeal issued an unpublished decision affirming the grant of judgment on the

pleadings. On July 18, 2005, plaintiff filed a petition for review in the California Supreme 1

Court. Review was denied without comment or citation on August 31, 2005. 

In the caption of the complaint now before this court, plaintiff states that he is

requesting “review of a California Supreme Court decision. . . .” Elsewhere in the complaint

plaintiff makes it clear that he is asking this court to review the August 31, 2005, decision of the

California Supreme Court. This court, however, lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain

plaintiff’s complaint. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of

Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v.

Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005). Specifically, the federal district courts do not

have jurisdiction to sit in direct review of state court decision absent specific authorization to do

Case 2:06-cv-02039-GEB-CMK Document 5 Filed 10/12/06 Page 2 of 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

The federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows the federal

2

court to review state court criminal convictions and sentences, is an example of such

authorization. 

3

so from Congress. See id. 2

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be

dismissed and that the Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment and close this file.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

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

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

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 11, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02039-GEB-CMK Document 5 Filed 10/12/06 Page 3 of 3