Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02967/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02967-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GOPI RAJAGOPAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

MODESTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-2967 DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to submit 

the appropriate affidavit in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 6.) 

Plaintiff requests an extension because he is in restricted housing as a pretrial detainee. He states 

that he “may not be able to mail the court to process the application.” (Id.) He further states that 

he is “asking the Court to consider an injective [sic] order to stop the criminal proceeding by the 

Superior Court” in case number CR-22-011456. (Id.) The court notes that the instant filing 

indicates that plaintiff is permitted to send mail while in restricted housing. However, out of an 

abundance of caution, the undersigned will grant plaintiff an additional thirty days to submit an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff is further advised that this court does not have appellate jurisdiction over rulings 

made in a state superior court. See Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he 

Case 2:23-cv-02967-DAD-SCR Document 7 Filed 01/25/24 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

2

Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal courts from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over a 

proceeding in ‘which a party losing in state court’ seeks ‘what in substance would be appellate 

review of the state judgment in a United States district court, based on the losing party’s claim 

that the state judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights.’”) (quoting Johnson v. De Grandy, 

512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994), cert. denied 547 U.S. 1111 (2006)).

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 6) is granted;

2. Plaintiff shall submit a properly completed affidavit in support of a request to proceed 

in forma pauperis within thirty days of service of this order; and

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.

Dated: January 25, 2024

DB:12

DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/raja2967.36ifp

Case 2:23-cv-02967-DAD-SCR Document 7 Filed 01/25/24 Page 2 of 2