Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00937/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00937-0/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL FOSCALINA,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0937 MCE CKD PS

ORDER and

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff has requested authority pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by 

Local Rule 302(c)(21).

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is unable 

to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma 

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

The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the 

action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2). 

/////

Case 2:14-cv-00937-MCE-CKD Document 5 Filed 04/23/14 Page 1 of 4
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

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. 

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 

at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 

416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

Plaintiff‟s 20 page complaint does not set forth a short and plain statement as required by 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. It is apparent, however, from the allegations of the complaint 

that plaintiff challenges orders issued by state court judges arising out of the dissolution of 

plaintiff‟s marriage and a determination that plaintiff is a vexatious litigant under California law, 

California Code of Civil Procedure § 391 et seq.

1

 A federal district court does not have 

jurisdiction to review errors in state court decisions in civil cases. Dist. of Columbia Court of 

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 

(1923). “The district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction either to conduct a direct review of a 

 

1

 The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California is named as a defendant. 

The complaint, however, makes no allegations against this court. Also named as a defendant is 

the Honorable Cole Blease, a Justice of the Third District Court of Appeal of California. It 

appears plaintiff has confused the federal court with the California appellate court.

Case 2:14-cv-00937-MCE-CKD Document 5 Filed 04/23/14 Page 2 of 4
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

state court judgment or to scrutinize the state court‟s application of various rules and procedures 

pertaining to the state case.” Samuel v. Michaud, 980 F. Supp. 1381, 1411-12 (D. Idaho 1996), 

aff‟d, 129 F.3d 127 (9th Cir. 1997). See also Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291-92 (9th Cir.

1995) (finding no subject matter jurisdiction over section 1983 claim seeking, inter alia, implicit 

reversal of state trial court action); MacKay v. Pfeil, 827 F.2d 540, 544-45 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(attacking state court judgment because substantive defense improper under Rooker-Feldman). 

That the federal district court action alleges the state court‟s action was unconstitutional does not 

change the rule. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486. Moreover, claims raised in federal district court need 

not have been argued in the state judicial proceedings to be barred by the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine. Id. at 483-84 & n.16. If federal claims are “inextricably intertwined” with a state court 

judgment, the federal court may not hear them. Id. “[T]he federal claim is „inextricably 

intertwined‟ with the state court judgment if the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the 

state court wrongly decided the issues before it.” Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 25 

(1987) (Marshall, J., concurring). In sum, “a state court‟s application of its rules and procedures 

is unreviewable by a federal district court. The federal district court only has jurisdiction to hear 

general challenges to state rules or claims that are based on the investigation of a new case arising 

upon new facts.” Samuel, 980 F. Supp. at 1412-13. 

Plaintiff alleges improprieties related to domestic relation and vexatious litigant orders. 

Plaintiff does not raise a general federal challenge to state law. See Branson, 62 F. 3d at 292. 

Stripped to its essence, this action is one for federal court review of state court proceedings. The 

court finds the instant action amounts to an attempt to litigate in federal court matters that are 

inextricably intertwined with state court decisions. Accordingly, the court will recommend this 

action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman.

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff‟s request to 

proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

Case 2:14-cv-00937-MCE-CKD Document 5 Filed 04/23/14 Page 3 of 4
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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge‟s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court‟s order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: April 23, 2014

4 foscalina.ifp.57

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00937-MCE-CKD Document 5 Filed 04/23/14 Page 4 of 4