Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05616/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05616-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT ROSENBALM,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-5616 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff filed this action to appeal a decision of the California Supreme Court to deny his

petition for review in Rosenbalm v. Superior Court of Mendocino County, Cal. S. Ct. No.

S157384. Federal district courts are courts of original jurisdiction and may not review the final

determinations of a state court. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S.

462, 482-86 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923) (district courts

may not exercise appellate jurisdiction over state courts). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine

essentially bars federal district courts “from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that

is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment.” Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136,

1139 (9th Cir. 2004). Inasmuch as plaintiff clearly is trying to appeal the state court decision,

this action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff has attached to his notice of appeal documents from other cases in which he

complains about the state court criminal proceedings that are or were pending against him. He

must file a habeas petition if he wishes to challenge a criminal conviction or criminal

proceedings, bearing in mind the limitations on pre-conviction habeas petitions that this court

Case 3:07-cv-05616-SI Document 3 Filed 12/17/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

explained when it dismissed two of his earlier habeas petitions. See Order of Dismissal in

Rosenbalm v. Pearce, No. C 06-7237 SI (pr), and Order of Dismissal in Rosenbalm v.

Mendocino Superior Court, No. C 06-7412 SI (pr). 

The clerk shall close the file. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2007 ______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05616-SI Document 3 Filed 12/17/07 Page 2 of 2