Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01010/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01010-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Douglas K. Harris, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

American Work Force; ESIS/ACE USA;

Arizona Industrial Commission, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1010-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant Arizona Industrial Commission’s (the

“Commission”) motion to dismiss (doc. 6), defendants American Work Force and

ESIS/ACE’s motion to dismiss (collectively, “ACE defendants”) (doc. 8), plaintiff’s response

(doc. 7), the Commission’s reply (doc. 11), and the ACE defendants’ reply (doc. 14). We

also have before us plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (doc. 12) and the

Commission’s response (doc. 15).

I

The claims in plaintiff’s pro se complaint arise from an industrial injury that he

suffered while working for American Work Force. He filed for and received disability

benefits under his employer’s worker’s compensation program for approximately one year.

His benefits were eventually terminated upon a finding by the Administrative Law Judge

Case 2:08-cv-01010-FJM Document 22 Filed 08/15/08 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 -

(“ALJ”) that he was medically stationary and without permanent impairment. Plaintiff

unsuccessfully sought judicial review of the ALJ’s decision in the Arizona Court of Appeals

and the Arizona Supreme Court. He then filed this action against his employer, American

Work Force, ESIS/ACE, an insurance carrier, and the Commission, asserting claims of

negligence, civil rights violations, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and insurance fraud.

II

The Commission moves to dismiss the complaint, arguing that (1) we lack subject

matter jurisdiction to review a final decision of a state court, (2) the claims are barred by the

Eleventh Amendment, and (3) the claims are barred by the doctrine of quasi-judicial

immunity. We agree that we lack subject matter jurisdiction and accordingly we grant the

Commission’s motion to dismiss (doc. 6).

“Federal courts are not courts of general jurisdiction; they have only the power that

is authorized by Article III of the Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant

thereto.” Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541, 106 S. Ct. 1326,

1331 (1986). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a well-established jurisdictional rule

prohibiting federal courts from exercising appellate review over final state court judgments.

See Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, 525 F.3d 855, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2008); see also D.C. Court

of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 1315-17 (1983); Rooker v.

Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S. Ct. 149, 150 (1923). The doctrine applies

when a “federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state

court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that decision.” Henrichs v.

Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 613 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Rooker-Feldman applies even when the federal plaintiff does not directly contest the

merits of a state court decision, as the doctrine “prohibits a federal district court from

exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court

judgment.” Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003). A federal action is

a de facto appeal where “claims raised in the federal court action are ‘inextricably

intertwined’ with the state court’s decision such that the adjudication of the federal claims

Case 2:08-cv-01010-FJM Document 22 Filed 08/15/08 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

1

We also agree with the Commission that even if we had jurisdiction to consider

plaintiff’s claims, they are nevertheless barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. The

- 3 -

would undercut the state ruling or require the district court to interpret the application of state

laws or procedural rules.” Id. Moreover, a federal district court lacks jurisdiction over

challenges to state court decisions “even if those challenges allege that the state court’s

action was unconstitutional.” Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486, 103 S. Ct. at 1317. “If the

constitutional claims presented to a United States District Court are inextricably intertwined

with the state court’s denial in a judicial proceeding of a particular plaintiff’s application [for

relief], then the District Court is in essence being called upon to review the state court

decision. This the District Court may not do.” Id. at 483 n.16, 103 S. Ct. at 1316 n.16.

Absent express statutory authorization, only the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction

to reverse or modify a final state court judgment. Heinrichs, 474 F.3d at 613. 

The gravamen of plaintiff’s prolix and largely incomprehensible complaint is that the

ALJ and state courts erred in concluding that he is not entitled to continued benefits. In his

prayer for relief he “demands all decisions from the [Commission], STATE

APPEALS/SUPREME COURTS Be (DISMISSED) on the grounds of Intent and carried out

acts of Fraud/Criminal Conspiracy.” Complaint at 11. He seeks “Back Pay of the full

correct amount of workmen’s comp from Jan 2006 to the present,” as well as $10 million in

additional unspecified damages. Id. at 11-12. He argues that the ALJ improperly failed to

consider medical opinions supporting his disability claim. He posits various explanations

as to why the ALJ may have chosen to deny benefits, including bias and collusion, and

asserts that he was deprived of various constitutional rights as a result. 

At the heart of plaintiff’s complaint, however, is his contention that his benefits were

wrongfully terminated. This issue was squarely considered and rejected by the ALJ and the

Arizona Court of Appeals. An adjudication of the federal claims would require that we

revisit the state court’s decision and consider whether it erred in denying plaintiff continued

benefits. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine we are without jurisdiction to do so.1

Case 2:08-cv-01010-FJM Document 22 Filed 08/15/08 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

Eleventh Amendment bars actions against a state or its agencies unless the state consents to

suit or Congress abrogates Eleventh Amendment immunity, regardless of the relief sought.

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54, 116 S. Ct. 1114, 1122 (1996);

Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n.14, 105 S. Ct. 3099, 3106 n.14 (1985). Plaintiff

has failed to show that the State has consented to suit or that Congress has abrogated the

Commission’s immunity.

2

We note that plaintiff alleges scant factual allegations regarding defendant ESIS/ACE

such that the complaint fails to give the defendant reasonable notice of the basis of the claims

against it as required by Rule 8(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. The claims against ESIS/ACE are

properly dismissed on this basis as well. 

- 4 -

III

The Ace defendants move for dismissal of the complaint because they have not been

properly served (doc. 8). They correctly contend that service by certified mail is not

sufficient under Rule 4(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. However, the deadline to effect service has not

expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (plaintiff shall have 120 days after the complaint is filed

to effect service). Therefore, the Ace defendants’ motion is premature and is denied.

Nevertheless, the dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction also

applies to the claims asserted against the Ace defendants.2 Sua sponte dismissal for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate at any stage of the proceedings. Scholastic Entm’t,

Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Group, Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3). We have concluded that the plaintiff’s complaint is the functional equivalent of an

appeal of the state court decision and that we are without jurisdiction to consider these

claims. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed as to all of the defendants for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction.

Case 2:08-cv-01010-FJM Document 22 Filed 08/15/08 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 -

IV

Generally, Rule 15(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., permits a party to amend a complaint once as

a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is filed. Nevertheless, plaintiff

filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint (doc. 12) and submitted what he calls an

“amended complaint” (doc. 19). We may deny leave to amend where it is clear that

amendment would be futile, Flowers v. First Hawaiian Bank, 295 F.3d 966, 976 (9th Cir.

2002), and we will look to the sufficiency of allegations in the proposed amended complaint

to determine if the amended allegations would cure the complaint’s deficiencies, Jones v.

Cmty. Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 650-51 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint is largely a recitation of his original

complaint. As in the original complaint, the amended allegations arise directly out of

plaintiff’s work-related injury and the denial of continued worker’s compensation benefits.

Because these amended claims are also inextricably intertwined with the state court’s

decision denying plaintiff continued benefits, we are without jurisdiction to review them.

Moreover, plaintiff’s amended claims against the Commission are barred by the Eleventh

Amendment, and his amended allegations regarding deprivation of constitutional rights are

incurably frivolous. It would be a futile use of judicial and litigant resources to permit the

filing of an amended complaint “as a matter of course” that is irreparable and that we have

no jurisdiction to entertain. Because it is clear that the deficiencies in plaintiff’s complaint

cannot be cured by amendment, we deny plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint (doc.

12). 

V

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING the Commission’s motion to dismiss for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction (doc. 6), DENYING the Ace Defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc.

8), but sua sponte DISMISSING the complaint against the Ace Defendants for lack of 

Case 2:08-cv-01010-FJM Document 22 Filed 08/15/08 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 -

subject matter jurisdiction. Finally, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s motion to

amend the complaint (doc. 12). The clerk shall enter final judgment.

DATED this 14th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01010-FJM Document 22 Filed 08/15/08 Page 6 of 6