Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02429/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02429-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP MCCAIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2429 DFL JFM PS

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, ARKANSAS

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

ET AL.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. On November

13, 2006, plaintiff filed a document without a title. (Docket No. 32.) On November 20, 2006,

plaintiff filed a document entitled “Mr. Phillip McCain and Lizzie McCain et al. Appellants

AND Defendants Additur and Objection Against DHHS, AND Plaintiff and Respondents

Remittitur and Falsifaction.” (Docket No. 33.) 

It appears plaintiff is attempting to file objections to or an appeal from a state

court order. Plaintiff is “appealing from [his] right being denied to and wife such as the fee we

[are] owed for having to do our own paper work for Court and the law suit we filed against

C,PS,and D,H,H,S, and the Court and Child Support and the County of Sacramento and

Sacramento, Ca were appealing from that denial immediately to Sacramento County Circuit

Case 2:05-cv-02429-JKS-JFM Document 37 Filed 11/30/06 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

2

Courts and Miller County Circuit Court. . . .” (November 13, 2006 filing at 5-6.) “Appellant’s

Opening Brief Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court of the State of California

Sacramento County Honorable Marlene E. Hertoghe, Referee.” (November 20, 2006 filing at 1.) 

Plaintiff is advised that a litigant may not relitigate in federal court those issues

decided by a state court. "[I]ssues actually litigated in a state-court proceeding are entitled to the

same preclusive effect in a subsequent federal § 1983 suit as they enjoy in the courts of the State

where the judgment was rendered." Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. Of Ed., 465 U.S. 75, 83

(1984). Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of a state court

judgment, even though the judgment may erroneously decide constitutional or federal law issues. 

Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 784 F.2d 1133, 1141 (2nd Cir 1196), rev'd on other grounds, 481

U.S. 1 (1987). "If the constitutional claims presented to a United States District Court are

inextricably intertwined" with the merits of a judgment rendered in a state court proceeding,

"then the District Court is in essence being called upon to review the state court decision. This

the District court may not do." District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,

483 n.16 (1983).

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s

November 13, 2006 and November 20, 2006 filings will be placed in the court file and

disregarded.

DATED: November 30, 2006.

001; mccain.cuo2

Case 2:05-cv-02429-JKS-JFM Document 37 Filed 11/30/06 Page 2 of 2