Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00012/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00012-7/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 RE: FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

AND WITH PREJUDICE (DOCS. 15, 16 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an

action for damages and other relief concerning alleged civil

rights violations. 

On September 5, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed findings

and a recommendation that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint,

filed on June 1, 2006, be dismissed without leave to amend and

with prejudice, and that the action further be dismissed for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction. The findings and recommendation

were served on all parties and contained notice that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. On

November 21, 2006, Plaintiff filed objections. The undersigned

Case 1:06-cv-00012-AWI -SMS Document 20 Filed 12/19/06 Page 1 of 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

2

has considered the objections and has determined there is no need

to modify the findings and recommendations based on the points

raised in the objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d

452, 454 (9 Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo th

review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the Court finds that the report and recommendation are supported

by the record and proper analysis. In the objections, Plaintiff

contends that the defendants are not immune from their fraudulent

actions resulting in the loss of Plaintiff’s land. While

Plaintiff claims he is not attempting to have this court review

the actions of the state court, that is exactly what Plaintiff

asks this court to do. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, a

federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to

review final determinations of state courts, as well as claims

“inextricably intertwined” with final state court decisions, even

if such “inextricably intertwined” claims were not actually

raised in the state court. See District of Columbia Court of

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87, 483 n. 16 (1983);

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Olson Farms,

Inc. v. Barbosa, 134 F.3d 933, 937 (9 Cir.1998) (holding th

"Rooker-Feldman" doctrine is jurisdictional). If Plaintiff

believes frauds were committed on the state court, Plaintiff has

remedies in the state courts.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 5, 2006,

ARE ADOPTED IN FULL; and

Case 1:06-cv-00012-AWI -SMS Document 20 Filed 12/19/06 Page 2 of 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

3

2. Plaintiff’s claims against the Superior Court, Clerk

Johnna Nunn, and Prosecutor Perry Patterson ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT

LEAVE TO AMEND and WITH PREJUDICE because of Eleventh Amendment

and judicial, quasi-judicial, and prosecutorial immunity,

respectively;

2) Plaintiff’s claims against the Kern County Sheriff’s

Department, Deputy Larry Thatcher, attorney Daniel Jon Tobias,

attorney Jamie Gelber, Anne Frances Peters, and Claudie Duckworth

ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AND WITH PREJUDICE FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED; and

3) This action IS DISMISSED based on this Court’s lack of

subject matter jurisdiction because the action constitutes an 

impermissible collateral attack upon a state court judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00012-AWI -SMS Document 20 Filed 12/19/06 Page 3 of 3