Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02263/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02263-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILL MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff, 

vs. No. CIV S-05-2263 MCE GGH PS

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL COURTS,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested leave to proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule

72-302(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

The determination that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete

the required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case

at any time if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against

an immune defendant. 

A claim is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984); Jackson

Case 2:05-cv-02263-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 01/27/06 Page 1 of 6
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 Neither does it comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 10, governing the form of pleadings. 1

2

v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989).

A complaint, or portion thereof, fails to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt

there is no set of supporting facts entitling plaintiff to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt

Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under

this standard, the court must accept as true its allegations, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp.

Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe it in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and

resolve all doubts in plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 ( 1969). 

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595-96 (1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se

plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before

dismissal. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1230. 

The complaint alleges that plaintiff was not allowed to enter a plea in municipal

court for one year after arraignment, and that his speedy trial motion was denied. He claims at

trial he was exonerated but his exoneration was not mentioned, and his speedy trial motion was

also not mentioned. He seeks monetary damages, that any record of him be removed from all

records, and release of all records. 

The complaint does not allege a basis for this court’s jurisdiction. A less 1

stringent examination is afforded pro se pleadings, Haines, 404 U.S. at 520, 92 S. Ct. at 595, but

simple reference to federal law does not create subject-matter jurisdiction. Avitts v. Amoco Prod.

Co., 53 F.3d 690, 694 (5th Cir.1995). Subject-matter jurisdiction is created only by pleading a

cause of action within the court’s original jurisdiction. Id. In any event, it is plaintiff’s 

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-02263-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 01/27/06 Page 2 of 6
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

3

obligation to state the basis of the court’s jurisdiction in the complaint, and plaintiff has not done

so. 

Plaintiff’s allegations of errors in the state court might possibly be barred by the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine if they are inextricably intertwined with the state court’s prior

judgment. 

A federal district court does not have jurisdiction to review legal errors in state

court decisions. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 103 S. Ct.

1303, 1311-1312 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 44 S. Ct. 149, 150

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

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- 1412 (D. Idaho

1996). See also Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291-92 (9th Cir.1995) (finding no subject matter

jurisdiction over § 1983 claim seeking, inter alia, implicit reversal of state trial court action);

MacKay v. Pfeil, 827 F.2d 540, 544-45 (9th Cir. 1987) (attack on state court judgment because of

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. See Feldman, 460

U.S. at 486, 103 S. Ct. at 1316-1317. 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 483-484 n. 16, 103 S. Ct. at 1315-1316 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, 107 S. Ct. 1519, 1533 (1987) (Marshall, J., concurring). 

The 9th Circuit clarified the doctrine in Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148 (9th

Cir.2003). A federal plaintiff who asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a

state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that decision is barred by

Case 2:05-cv-02263-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 01/27/06 Page 3 of 6
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

4

Rooker-Feldman because the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 1164. If, on

the other hand, a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly illegal act or omission by

an adverse party, Rooker-Feldman does not bar jurisdiction. Id. But even if a federal plaintiff is

expressly seeking to set aside a state court judgment, Rooker-Feldman does not apply unless a

legal error by the state court is the basis for that relief. See Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d

1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff is informed that if he expressly pleads that he is seeking

review of state law error, his complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The requirement of a short and plain statement means a complaint must include

“sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.” McKeever

v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S. Ct.

99, 102 (1957); Richmond v. Nationwide Cassel L.P., 52 F.3d 640, 645 (7th Cir. 1995) (vague

and scanty allegations fail to satisfy the notice requirement of Rule 8); 5 C. Wright & A. Miller,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 1202 (2d ed. 1990). In this case, plaintiff names Sacramento

Municipal Courts as the sole defendant, but has not set forth how the court violated his rights.

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute 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 Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

meaning of § 1983, if 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).

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-02263-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 01/27/06 Page 4 of 6
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

5

Plaintiff does not explain why the denial of his speedy trial motion should have

been mentioned at his trial, how he was exonerated before his trial ended in a verdict, and why

any exoneration should have been raised at trial.

Moreover, Section 1983 does not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment

immunity from suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 344-45, 99 S. Ct. 1139, 1147 (1979). 

The state courts are immune from civil rights liability pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. 

“The Eleventh Amendment bars suits which seek either damages or injunctive relief against a

state, an ‘arm of the state,’ its instrumentalities, or its agencies. Durning v. Citibank, N.A., 950

F.2d 1419, 1422-23 (9th Cir. 1991). The Superior Court is an arm of the State. See Hyland v.

Wonder, 117 F.3d 405, 413 (9th Cir.1997), amended by and reh’g denied, 127 F.3d 1135 (9th

Cir.1997) (state case law and constitutional provisions make clear that California Superior Court

is State agency); Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir.1995) (California municipal

court is arm of state protected from lawsuit by Eleventh Amendment immunity); Root v. Schenk,

953 F. Supp. 1115, 1120 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (holding state superior court an arm of the state). 

Moreover, with the exception of prospective injunctive relief actions, “states or governmental

entities that are considered ‘arms of the State’ for Eleventh Amendment purposes are not

‘persons’ under § 1983.” Doe v. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 131 F.3d 836, 839

(9 Cir. 1997) citing Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 2311 th

(1989). 

Therefore, the complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff is

informed the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to make an amended complaint

complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself. 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). Accordingly, once plaintiff files an amended complaint,

the original no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, “a plaintiff waives all causes of

action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint,”

Case 2:05-cv-02263-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 01/27/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir.1981), and defendants not named in

an amended complaint are no longer defendants. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 262 (9th Cir.).

Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

2. The complaint is dismissed, with leave to file an amended complaint within

thirty days from the date of service of this order. Failure to file an amended complaint will result

in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

DATED: 1/26/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS,

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Martinez2263.amd.wpd

Case 2:05-cv-02263-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 01/27/06 Page 6 of 6