Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-07567/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-07567-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FLOYD SCOTT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CA, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 18-07567 EJD (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action 

seeking a “petition for writ of mandate” against the Monterey Superior Court, to have his 

name taken off California’s Vexatious Litigant List. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis will be granted in s separate order. 

DISCUSSION 

 Plaintiff claims that the Monterey County Superior Court, Civil Division, erred 

when it declared him a vexatious litigant because several of the cases considered to make 

that determination should not have been used. (Compl. at 1-2.) Plaintiff also claims that 

the superior court erred in failing to grant him a stay of proceedings in a state action and 

then dismissing the matter. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that he has made several attempts to have 

Case 5:18-cv-07567-EJD Document 12 Filed 04/26/19 Page 1 of 3
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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

the “Lower Court” rule on this matter “with no avail,” such that he has “no other option 

but to have the Reviewing Court to render the proper and necessary Issue of a Writ from 

the Appellate Court [sic].” (Id. at 4.) 

 A writ of mandate is an order from an appellate court directing a lower court to take 

a specified action. Ellis v. District Court, 360 F.3d 1022, 1022-23 (9th Cir. 2004) (order 

denying motion for recall and stay of mandate). It appears that Plaintiff has filed in the 

wrong court, and incorrectly believes that an appeal from the adverse decision in the 

Monterey County Superior Court should be filed in this court, believing we have appellate 

jurisdiction over the state court. However, an appeal from an adverse decision from the 

Monterey County Superior Court should be filed in the appropriate California Court of 

Appeal, not in the federal district court. 

 A federal district court is a court of original jurisdiction and does not have appellate 

jurisdiction over a decision from a state superior court. See District of Columbia Court of 

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 

413, 415-16 (1923) (district courts may not exercise appellate jurisdiction over state 

courts). State court litigants may therefore only obtain federal review by filing a petition 

for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. See Feldman, 460 U.S. 

at 486-87; Rooker, 263 U.S. at 416. This is because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine sets a 

limit to the district court’s jurisdiction based on the Supreme Court’s exclusive appellate 

jurisdiction over state court judgments under 28 U.S.C. § 1257. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. 

Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291-92 (2005). 

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies even when the state court judgment is not 

made by the highest state court, see Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 

893 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986), when federal constitutional issues are at stake, see Branson v. 

Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 (9th Cir. 1995); Mullins v. Oregon, 57 F.3d 789, 792 (9th Cir. 

1995), and when the federal review would be of state court review of determinations made 

by state administrative bodies, see Feldman, 460 U.S. at 468, 485-86; Olson Farms, Inc., 

Case 5:18-cv-07567-EJD Document 12 Filed 04/26/19 Page 2 of 3
3 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

134 F.3d at 936. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine essentially bars federal district courts 

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

court judgment.” Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff 

is clearly trying to appeal a state court decision. Therefore, this action must be dismissed 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. 

The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Order of Dismissal 

PRO-SE\EJD\CR.18\07567Scott_dism 

4/26/2019

Case 5:18-cv-07567-EJD Document 12 Filed 04/26/19 Page 3 of 3