Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02854/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02854-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BERNABE MORA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP, LITTON

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE

SERVICING, LP, LITTON MORTGAGE

SERVICING, GOLDMAN SACH BANK

U.S.A, QUALITY LOAN, LITTON LOAN

SERVICER, RICHARD MCMAHAN,

CORALEE MCMAHAN, COUNTY OF

MONTEREY SUPERIOR COURT,

MONTEREY COUNTY SHERIFF

DEPARTMENT, MONTEREY COUNTY

LEVYING OFFICER, ROY C. GUNTER III,

ESQ.; KEVIN KEMP, ESQ.; DAVID SCOTT,

ESQ.; DOES 1-100 inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C10-02854 HRL

ORDER THAT CASE BE REASSIGNED

TO A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

[Re: Docket No. 2]

Presently before the court is plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. A

court may authorize the commencement of a civil action in forma pauperis (“IFP”) if the court

is satisfied that the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filing fees necessary to pursue the action. 

28 U.S.C § 1915(a)(1). In evaluating such an application, the court should “gran[t] or den[y]

IFP status based on the plaintiff’s financial resources alone and then independently determin[e]

whether to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it is frivolous.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745

*E-FILED 08-03-2010*

Case 5:10-cv-02854-LHK Document 5 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 3
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

F.2d 1221, 1226-27 n.5 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff’s application indicates that his assets and

income are insufficient to enable him to prosecute this action. Accordingly, his application to

proceed without the payment of the filing fee is granted.

However, the court’s grant of plaintiff’s IFP application does not mean that he may

continue to prosecute his complaint. A court may dismiss a case filed without the payment of

the filing fee whenever it determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to

state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant

who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). “If the court determines at

any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” 

FED.R.CIV.P. 12(h)(3).

Here, plaintiff’s complaint arises out of a series state court actions concerning a dispute

over title to certain real property. The record presented indicates that plaintiff apparently has

suffered an adverse judgments at both the trial and appellate levels. Although plaintiff asserts

that defendants have committed “constitutional, abuse under color of state law, judicial abuse or

misconduct by superior court judges” (Complaint at 1-2), there are no facts alleged to support

plaintiff’s conclusion that any such abuses have occurred. Instead, plaintiff essentially seeks

federal review of the state court matters. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, however, a

federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the final determinations of a

state court in judicial proceedings. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT the Clerk of the Court shall reassign this case to a

district court judge. The undersigned further RECOMMENDS that the newly-assigned judge

dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

August 3, 2010

Case 5:10-cv-02854-LHK Document 5 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

5:10-cv-02854-HRL Notice mailed to:

Bernabe Mora

PO Box 1480

Castroville, CA 95012

Case 5:10-cv-02854-LHK Document 5 Filed 08/03/10 Page 3 of 3