Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00680/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00680-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lee Es Burgeles,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

The Honorable Janet Napolitano,

Governor of Arizona, etc., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0680-PHX-LOA

ORDER

On April 10, 2008, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to, among others, “file

an Amended Complaint on or before Friday, April 25, 2008 that complies in all aspects

with [that] Order, Rule 8(a), FED.R.CIV.P., and the Local Rules of Practice or this lawsuit

may be dismissed without prejudice.” (docket # 4 at 6) The Court also directed that the

Amended Complaint “shall set forth an independent basis for federal jurisdiction of

Plaintiff’s case . . . [and] Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to allege an independent basis

for federal jurisdiction of this case may result in the dismissal” of this case without

prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3), FED.R. CIV.P. Id. at 4 (footnote omitted) In fact,

footnote 3 gave pro se Plaintiff examples of claims for which a federal court would have

jurisdiction. Id.

On May 1, 2008, Plaintiff expressly consented in writing to magistratejudge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). (docket # 5)

Case 2:08-cv-00680-LOA Document 9 Filed 05/22/08 Page 1 of 5
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

 It was originally entered on May 5, 2008 but due to a typographical error

(“Defendant” in stead of “Plaintiff”), an Amended Order was entered on May 13, 2008

extending the time for Plaintiff to comply with the original order.

- 2 -

On May 13, 2008,1

 the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing on

or before 5:00 p.m. on May 19, 2008 why this lawsuit should not be dismissed without

prejudice due to the absence of federal jurisdiction and non-compliance with the Court’s

April 10, 2008 Order. (docket # 6 and # 7) 

To date, Plaintiff has failed to file an Amended Complaint, indicating the

specific basis for federal jurisdiction of this lawsuit. Instead, on May 20, 2008, Plaintiff

filed a 7-page document entitled, “NOTICE OF MOTION: Society retaliation for own

justified effected to justice court and failed leadership,” containing 7 pages of exhibits.

(docket # 8) It is very difficult to understand this nonsensical document. Fairly read,

overlooking its untimeliness, and even construing Plaintiff’s pleading to a less stringent

standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Plaintiff’s recent filing is clearly not

an Amended Complaint in compliance with Rule 8, FED.R.CIV.P., nor is it responsive to

the Court’s detailed April 10, 2008 Order and May 13, 2008 Order to Show Cause.

Clearly, no basis, statutory or otherwise, for federal jurisdiction is set forth in Plaintiff’s

May 20, 2008 pleading nor does it affirmatively appear in his earlier pleadings.

As the Court made plain to Plaintiff in its April 10, 2008 Order, a federal

district court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing jurisdiction

is on the party claiming jurisdiction. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298

U.S. 178, 182-183 (1936). (see docket # 4) “A federal court is presumed to lack

jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stevedoring

Servs. of Am., Inc. v. Eggert, 953 F.2d 552, 554 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Stock West, Inc.

v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir.1989)). “A [district] court has an

obligation to inquire sua sponte into its subject matter jurisdiction, and to proceed no

Case 2:08-cv-00680-LOA Document 9 Filed 05/22/08 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

further if such jurisdiction is wanting.” Feldman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 322 F.3d 660, 665

(9th Cir. 2003).

Besides the absence of pleading an express basis for the exercise of federal

jurisdiction, additional grounds also exist to dismiss Plaintiff’s lawsuit. Since Plaintiff is

appearing to either appeal a state court case or an open, non-final state case to federal

court, the Rooker- Feldman and Younger doctrines counsel dismissal without prejudice of

Plaintiff’s federal lawsuit.

The Rooker- Feldman doctrine examines whether a federal district court has

jurisdiction to review the final decisions of state courts. District courts generally lack the

authority to review state judgments pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257, since only the United

States Supreme Court has such jurisdiction. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413,

415 (1923); District of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The

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. Doe v.

Mann, 415 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2005) (“In simple terms, ‘[u]nder Rooker-Feldman,

a federal district court is without subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the

judgment of a state court.’”).

The Ninth Circuit has very recently confirmed “that ‘[t]he clearest case for

dismissal based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine occurs 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.” Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., ___ F.3d

___, 2008 WL 1970349, * 2 (9th Cir. 2008). “A federal action constitutes such 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 would undercut

the state ruling or require the district court to interpret the application of state laws or

Case 2:08-cv-00680-LOA Document 9 Filed 05/22/08 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

procedural rules.’ ” Id. at * 3 (citing Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir.

2003)).

In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court “espouse[d] a

strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial

proceedings” and held that a federal court should not enjoin pending state criminal

proceedings and, therefore, should abstain from hearing the suit. H.C. v. Koppel, 203 F.3d

610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). “Absent extraordinary circumstances,

Younger abstention is required if the state proceedings are (1) ongoing, (2) implicate

important state interests, and (3) provide the plaintiff an adequate opportunity to litigate

federal claims.” Id. The Younger principle applies to both criminal and civil proceedings

in which important state interests are involved. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of

New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 367-68 (1989); Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 13

(1987). 

Dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with the procedural rules of

the court is within the court’s discretion. Original Ballet Russe, Ltd. v. Ballet Theatre,

Inc., 133 F.2d 187, 188 (2nd Cir. 1943); Sergio Bautista et al. v. Los Angeles County, 216

F.3rd 837 (9th Cir. 2000). Moreover, district courts have the inherent power to control

their dockets and in the exercise of that power may impose sanctions including, where

appropriate, dismissal of a case. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). 

“In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order, district

courts must weigh five factors: (1) the public interest; (2) the court’s need to manage the

docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.”

Id. at 1260-61.

 After considering and weighing all five factors to determine if dismissal is

appropriate for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rules 8(a) and 12(h)(3), FED.R.CIV.P.,

and this Court’s April 10, 2008 and May 13, 2008 Orders and also considering the

Case 2:08-cv-00680-LOA Document 9 Filed 05/22/08 Page 4 of 5
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 -

Rooker-Feldman and Younger doctrines, the Court concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff’s

Complaint without prejudice is appropriate and just under the circumstances. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby dismissed without

prejudice.

Dated this 21st day of May, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00680-LOA Document 9 Filed 05/22/08 Page 5 of 5