Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00937/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00937-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL FOSCALINA,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0937-MCE-CKD-PS

ORDER

Through the present action, Plaintiff Joel Foscalina, proceeding in pro se, 

challenges orders issued by state court judges arising out of the dissolution of Plaintiff’s 

marriage, as well as the state court determination that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant 

under California law. The Eastern District of California is named as a defendant even 

though Plaintiff’s complaint makes no allegations against this court.

On April 23, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued findings recommending that this 

matter be dismissed since a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review alleged 

errors may by a state court in civil cases. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. 

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 

(1923). As the Magistrate Judge noted, Plaintiff alleges improprieties related to domestic 

Case 2:14-cv-00937-MCE-CKD Document 13 Filed 03/20/15 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

relation and vexatious litigants orders, and fails to raise any cognizable federal 

challenge to state law. On May 14, 2014, the undersigned adopted the Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations in full and dismissed the case. Plaintiff 

thereafter, on May 21, 2014, filed the Motion for Reconsideration now before the Court.

Under Eastern District Local Rule 230(j), an application for reconsideration must 

show what new or different facts are claimed to exist at the time of reconsideration which 

did not exist beforehand, or what other grounds exist for the Motion. Plaintiff’s instant 

request fails to meet that standard. He provides absolutely no new or different facts or 

circumstances to indicate that reconsideration is appropriate. Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Reconsideration (ECF No. 12) is accordingly DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-00937-MCE-CKD Document 13 Filed 03/20/15 Page 2 of 2