Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00012/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00012-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL EARLE BOYER, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

ANNE FRANCES PETERS, ) 

 )

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-00012-AWI-SMS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS (DOC. 6)

ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED

COMPLAINT NO LATER THAN THIRTY

DAYS AFTER THE SERVICE OF THIS

ORDER (DOC. 1) 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action for damages

and other relief concerning alleged civil rights violations. The

matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

I. Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing

required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in

forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

II. Screening the Complaint

In cases wherein the plaintiff is proceeding in forma

pauperis, the Court is required to screen cases and shall dismiss

Case 1:06-cv-00012-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/28/06 Page 1 of 10
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

the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation

of poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,

or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief,

whether an original claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim, shall contain

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds

upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends,

unless the court already has jurisdiction and 

the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction

to support it, (2) a short and plain statement

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for

the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the 

alternative or of several different types 

may be demanded.

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement as required

by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a

flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and

state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v.

Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984).

Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity

overt acts which the defendants engaged in that support

Plaintiff's claim. Id. Although a complaint need not outline all

elements of a claim, it must be possible to infer from the

allegations that all elements exist and that there is entitlement

to relief under some viable legal theory. Walker v. South Cent.

Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1990); Lewis v.

ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-06 (6th Cir. 1998).

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must

accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Case 1:06-cv-00012-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/28/06 Page 2 of 10
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

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most

favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447

(9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a

claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the

deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A

complaint, or a portion thereof, should only be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it

appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of

facts, consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim

or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981).

Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is

proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail

on the facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend

would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128.

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in

law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). The

test for malice is a subjective one that requires the Court to

determine whether the applicant is proceeding in good faith.

Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab. Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46 (1915); see

Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 n. 1 (11th Cir. 1986). A

lack of good faith is most commonly found in repetitive suits

Case 1:06-cv-00012-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/28/06 Page 3 of 10
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

filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of cost-free

filing to file a multiplicity of suits. A complaint may be

inferred to be malicious if it suggests an intent to vex the

defendants or abuse the judicial process by relitigating claims

decided in prior cases, Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309

(D.C.Cir. 1981); if it threatens violence or contains

disrespectful references to the Court, id.; or if it contains

untrue material allegations of fact or false statements made with

knowledge and an intent to deceive the Court, Horsey v. Asher,

741 F.2d 209, 212 (8th Cir. 1984).

Plaintiff purports to be prosecuting a suit for civil rights

violations. The complaint consists of allegations concerning the

judges, attorneys, and parties involved in a state court

proceeding concerning an application for a restraining order

against Plaintiff by Defendant Ann Frances Peters, with whom

Plaintiff purchased property intended to be used as a joint

residence. It appears that a settlement of the parties’ dispute

regarding the underlying real property was anticipated or

arranged, and then Plaintiff disputed the enforceability of the

settlement, receiving an unfavorable judgment as well as

similarly unfavorable review by the state intermediate appellate

court and California Supreme Court. Plaintiff makes various

allegations of fraud by the judges, commissioners, and parties

involved. Plaintiff submitted for his complaint the petition for

review of the decision of the California Court of Appeal, Fifth

Appellate District, which he filed in the California Supreme

court. Plaintiff asserts abuse of the state domestic violence

law, lack of state court jurisdiction, the enforceability of the

Case 1:06-cv-00012-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/28/06 Page 4 of 10
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

settlement, extrinsic fraud of the parties and court and counsel,

and violation of various constitutional rights by the issuance of

the restraining order and rulings made in the suit.

III. Rule 8 Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) calls for a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief. Rule 8(a) expresses the principle of notice pleading,

whereby the pleader need only give the opposing party fair notice

of a claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Rule

8(a) does not require an elaborate recitation of every fact a

plaintiff may ultimately rely upon at trial, but only a statement

sufficient to give the defendant fair notice of what the

plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Id. at

47. 

In this instance, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint

does not meet Rule 8's basic standard. 

Plaintiff names only one Defendant in the caption, but the

allegations concern the conduct of many people associated with

the state court proceedings. Plaintiff does not link specific

allegations of wrongful conduct with specific defendants, and

thus his complaint is unclear. 

The civil rights statute plainly requires that there be an

actual connection or link between the actions of the defendants

and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. 

See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658

(1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit

has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation

of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if

Case 1:06-cv-00012-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/28/06 Page 5 of 10
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

he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative

acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to

do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). In order to

state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link

each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that

demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s federal rights.

Because Plaintiff has failed to link the named defendants

with some affirmative act or omission, Plaintiff’s complaint must

be dismissed. 

Further, as will be further discussed below, Plaintiff’s

complaint does not contain a short statement of facts

establishing jurisdiction in this court. 

IV. Judicial Immunity

Many of the allegations concern the conduct of various

judges and commissioners involved in Plaintiff’s state court

case. 

Judges and officers whose functions bear a close association

to the judicial process are entitled to absolute judicial

immunity from damage actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for judicial

acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts. Demoran v.

Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 156 (9th Cir. 1986). A judge loses judicial

immunity for judicial acts only when the judge acts in the clear

absence of all jurisdiction or performs an act that is not

judicial in nature. Shucker v.Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th

Cir. 1988). The factors relevant in determining whether an act is

judicial “relate to the nature of the act itself, i.e., whether

it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the

Case 1:06-cv-00012-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/28/06 Page 6 of 10
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

7

expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the

judge in his judicial capacity.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,

356-357, 362 (1978). Judicial immunity is not lost by allegations

that a judge conspired with a third party. As long as the judge’s

ultimate acts are judicial actions taken within the court’s

subject matter jurisdiction, immunity applies. Ashelman v. Pope,

793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 1986).

The allegations of the complaint before the Court establish

that the judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

Plaintiff is complaining of actions or rulings made by the judges

in a case pending before the respective courts. The actions or

rulings made by the judges in connection with plaintiff’s cases

to which the judges were assigned were within their jurisdiction.

V. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

 Appellate jurisdiction of state court judgments rests in

the United States Supreme Court, 28 U.S.C. § 1257, not in the

federal district court. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine derives its

name from Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and

District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462

(1983). The doctrine provides that a federal district court is

without subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the

judgment of a state court. Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895,

896 (2003), cert. denied, Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 540 U.S. 1213,

(2004). If 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 procedural rules, then the federal

Case 1:06-cv-00012-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/28/06 Page 7 of 10
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

8

complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d at 898. A claim is

inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment if the

federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court

wrongly decided the issues before it, or if the relief requested

in the federal action would effectively reverse the state court

decision or void its ruling. Fontana Empire Center, LLC v. City

of Fontana, 307 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir. 2002). 

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is confined to cases brought by

state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court

judgments rendered before the district court proceedings

commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of

those judgments. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries

Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 1522 (2005). Rooker-Feldman

may apply where the plaintiff in federal court claims that the

state court did not have jurisdiction to render a judgment. See

Olson Farms, Inc. v. Barbosa, 134 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 1998).

It appears from Plaintiff’s complaint that he is merely

seeking a review of a determinations made by the state court in

the course of the state court suit, or matters inextricably

intertwined with the state court judgment. This Court lacks

jurisdiction to conduct such a review.

VI. Amendment of the Complaint

In summary, the Court finds it necessary to dismiss the

complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff has failed to state a

cognizable claim and has failed to plead facts demonstrating

jurisdiction in this Court. However, it is possible that

Plaintiff can allege a set of facts, consistent with the

Case 1:06-cv-00012-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/28/06 Page 8 of 10
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

9

allegations, in support of the claim or claims that would entitle

him to relief. Thus, the Court will grant Plaintiff an

opportunity to amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies of

this complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint to cure the

deficiencies will result in dismissal of this action without

leave to amend.

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement as

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules

adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair

notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and

succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649

(9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree

of particularity overt acts which the defendants engaged in that

support Plaintiff's claim. Id.

In addition, Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot

refer to a prior pleading in order to make Plaintiff's amended

complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay,

375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once Plaintiff files an amended

complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in

the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must

be sufficiently alleged.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis IS

GRANTED; and

Case 1:06-cv-00012-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/28/06 Page 9 of 10
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

10

2) Plaintiff's complaint IS DISMISSED; and

3) Plaintiff IS GRANTED thirty days from the date of service

of this order in which to file an amended complaint that complies

with the requirements of the pertinent substantive law, the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of

Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number

assigned this case and must be labeled "First Amended Complaint";

failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this

order will be considered to be a failure to comply with an order

of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 and will result in

dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00012-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/28/06 Page 10 of 10