Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00526/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00526-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN L. McCARTY, CASE NO. CV F 06-0526 OWW LJO

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION

vs.

ROBERT M. GRGURIC,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff John L. McCarty (“plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis and on May 2,

2006, filed his complaint against Florida attorney Robert M. Grguric to attempt to allege state law tort

claims, including legal malpractice. The complaint alleged that in November 1998, plaintiff and LaDan

McCarty (“Ms. McCarty”) retained Mr. Grguric and that plaintiff and Ms. McCarty each paid half for

a “simple dissolution.” The complaint alleged that Mr. Grguric “created an ex parte alliance with LaDan

McCarty in Florida, which denied Plaintiff notice and traditional notions of fair play and substantial

justice.” The complaint further alleged that Mr. Grguric lied to and manipulated Florida courts “by

illegally taking Plaintiff’s disability income.”

This Court issued its order to dismiss the complaint on grounds that it: (1) failed to establish this

Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction over Mr. Grguric; (2) failed to allege

a cognizable cause of action against Mr. Grguric; (3) was susceptible to limitations defenses; and (4)

Case 1:06-cv-00526-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 05/16/06 Page 1 of 8
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

appeared designed to vex Mr. Grguric. In response to the order to dismiss, plaintiff filed on May 12,

2006 his “First Amended Complaint: Seeking Relief From Voidable Judgment & Orders Procured with

Abuse of Process, Extrinsic Fraud, Absence of Jurisdiction of the Subject Matter or Over the Plaintiff”

(“amended complaint”). The amended complaint names Mr. Grguric as the sole defendant. The

amended complaint alleges plaintiff’s income was wrongfully taken from him in Florida marital

dissolution proceedings and takes issue with Florida court orders.

DISCUSSION

Standards For Screening

“A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). . . . Such dismissal

may be made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.” Omar v. Sea-Land Service,

Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9 Cir. 1987); see Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-362 (9 Cir. 1981). Sua th th

sponte dismissal may be made before process is served on defendants. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

319, 324 (1989) (dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) are often made sua sponte); Franklin v. Murphy,

745 F.2d 1221, 1226 (9 Cir. 1984) (court may dismiss frivolous in forma pauperis action sua sponte th

prior to service of process on defendants). 

Since plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, this Court, notwithstanding any filing fee that may

have been paid, shall dismiss a case at any time iftheCourt determines the action is frivolous, malicious,

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

defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); 2 Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide:

Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (2006) Attacking the Pleadings, para. 9:226.1, pp. 9-69. A court

need not accept as true factual allegations in in forma pauperis complaints and may reject “completely

baseless” allegations, including those which are “fanciful,” “fantastic” or “delusional.” Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992).

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

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-1228 (9 Cir. 1984). A th

frivolous claim is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a fanciful factual allegation. Neitzke, 490

U.S. at 324. A federal court may 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.

Case 1:06-cv-00526-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 05/16/06 Page 2 of 8
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

The test for maliciousness is a subjective one and requires the court to “determine the . . . good

faith of the applicant.” Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46 (1915); see Wright v.

Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968, n. 1 (11 Cir. 1986). A lack of good faith is found most commonly in th

repetitive suits filed by plaintiffs who have used the advantage of cost-free filing to file a multiplicity

of suits. A complaint is malicious if it suggests an intent to vex 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);

Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 209 (10 Cir. 1981); Ballentine v. Crawford, 563 F.Supp. 627, 628-629 th

(N.D. Ind. 1983); cf. Glick v. Gutbrod, 782 F.2d 754, 757 (7 Cir. 1986) (court has inherent power to

th

dismiss case demonstrating “clear pattern of abuse of judicial process”). A lack of good faith or malice

also can be inferred from a complaint containing untrue material allegations of fact or false statements

made with intent to deceive the court. See Horsey v. Asher, 741 F.2d 209, 212 (8 Cir. 1984). th

A complaint, or portion thereof, may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond

doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts 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, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9 Cir. th

1981). “[W]hen a federal court reviews the sufficiency of a complaint, before the reception of any

evidence either by affidavit or admissions, its task is necessarily a limited one. The issue is not whether

a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support

claims.” Scheurer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1688 (1974); Gilligan v. Jamco Development

Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9 Cir. 1997). th

The face of the amended complaint reflects deficiencies to prevent plaintiff from offering

evidence to support claims raised in the amended complaint.

Subject Matter Jurisdictional

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general subject matter

jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases in which the United States Constitution and

Congress authorize them to adjudicate. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 114 S.Ct.

1673, 1677 (1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 2008 (1989). Federal courts

are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions, and the burden to establish the contrary rests

Case 1:06-cv-00526-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 05/16/06 Page 3 of 8
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

upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; 114 S.Ct. at 1677. Lack of subject

matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the court sua sponte. Attorneys Trust v.

Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-595 (9 Cir. 1996). “Nothing is to be more th

jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is what its power rests upon. Without

jurisdiction it is nothing.” In re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9 Cir. 1988). th

F.R.Civ.P. 8 establishes general pleading rules and provides in pertinent part:

(a) Claims for Relief. A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . 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 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.

. . .

(e) Pleading to be Concise and Direct; Consistency. 

(1) Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise and direct.

The amended complaint fails to allege a proper basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. The amended

complaint fails to allege facts to support this Court’s jurisdiction. The amended complaint addresses

the handling of a state court family law matter. Domestic and family law matters, including divorce and

custody, are state courts’ primary responsibility. Federal courts are prevented to hear disputes under the

“domestic relations exception” to federal jurisdiction. Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703, 112

S.Ct. 2206 (1992); Newman v. Indiana, 129 F.3d 937 (7 Cir. 1997). Core or ancillary proceedings th

stemming from domestic relations or family law disputes fall within the exception.

The amended complaint seeks this Court’s interference into family law and/or related disputes.

Pursuant to Ankenbrandt, this Court finds that it is prevented to proceed with this action. Ankenbrandt,

504 U.S. at 703; see also Allen v. Allen, 48 F.3d 259, 261 n. 2 (7 Cir. 1995) (constitutional claim th

involving custody dispute fits within domestic relations exception).

In addition, a federal court is not the proper forum to attack state court orders. Federal courts

lack jurisdiction to review or modify state court judgments under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Company, 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149 (1923); District of Columbia Court of

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303 (1983). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is based

Case 1:06-cv-00526-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 05/16/06 Page 4 of 8
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

on 28 U.S.C. § 1257 which grants the United States Supreme Court jurisdiction to review decisions of

the highest state courts for compliance with the federal Constitution. See Rooker, 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct.

149; Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303. The doctrine provides that “lower federal courts do not

have jurisdiction to review a case litigated and decided in state court; only the United States Supreme

Court has jurisdiction to correct state court judgments.” Gottfried v. Medical Planning Services, 142

F.3d 326, 330 (6 Cir. 1998). “This is equally true in constitutional cases brought under [28 U.S.C.] § th

1983, since federal courts must give ‘full faith and credit’ to the judicial proceedings of state courts.’”

Gottfried, 142 F.3d at 330 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1738). “Federal district courts lack subject matter

jurisdiction to review such final adjudications or to exclude constitutional claims that are ‘inextricably

intertwined with the state court’s [decision] in a judicial proceeding.’” Valenti v. Mitchell, 962 F.2d 288,

296 (3 Cir. 1992) (quoting Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483, n. 16). rd

Moreover, a federal court lackssubject matter jurisdiction to review final determinations of state

courts and claims “inextricably intertwined” with final state court decisions, even if such “inextricably

intertwined” claims were not raised in state court. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483-487 and 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 the Rooker-Feldman doctrine th

is jurisdictional). A federal district court is a court of original jurisdiction and has no authority to review

final determinations of state courts. Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 890 (9 Cir. th

1986); Dubinka v. Judges of Superior Court of State of Cal. for County of Los Angeles, 23 F.3d 218, 221

(9 Cir. 1994). “[A] losing party in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be th

appellate review of the state judgment in a United States District Court, based on the losing party’s claim

that the state judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights.” Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997,

1005-1006 (1994).

In short, the amended complaint reveals no grounds to properly invoke this Court’s jurisdiction.

An attempt at amendment is unwarranted.

Personal Jurisdiction

The amended complaint fails to allege facts to support personal jurisdiction over Mr. Grguric in

that the amended complaint refers to alleged wrongs in Florida where Mr. Grguric practices law. In

Case 1:06-cv-00526-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 05/16/06 Page 5 of 8
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

personam jurisdiction is required when a judgment is sought as to a defendant personally. Personal

jurisdiction is an essential element of a court’s jurisdiction and without it, a court “is powerless to

proceed to an adjudication.” Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 1572

(1999). “Because a court without jurisdiction over the parties cannot render a valid judgement, [the

court] must address Defendants’ personal jurisdiction argument before reaching the merits of the case.”

OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada, 149 F.3d 1086, 1090 (10 Cir. 1998). th

Federal courts lack nationwide personal jurisdiction and have no broader power over persons

outside the state in which they sit than do local state courts. Omni Capital Int’l v. Rudolph Wolff & Co.,

Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 104-105, 108 S.Ct. 404, 410 (1987); see F.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1)(A).

The amended complaint fails to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and in personam

jurisdiction over Mr. Grguric. In the absence of subject matter and in personam jurisdiction, this Court

is unable to proceed on plaintiff’s claims.

Pleading Deficiencies

A pleading may not simply allege a wrong has been committed and demand relief. The

underlying requirement is that a pleading give “fair notice” of the claim being asserted and the “grounds

upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48, 78 S.Ct. 99, 103 (1957); Yamaguchi v.

United States Department of Air Force, 109 F.3d 1475, 1481 (9 Cir. 1997). Although a complaint need th

not outline all elements of a claim, “[i]t must be possible . . . for an inference to be drawn that these

elements exist.” Walker v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5 Cir. 1990); Lewis th

v. ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-406 (6 Cir. 1998). Despite the flexible pleading th

policy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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 (9 Cir. th

1984). A plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt facts which defendant

engaged in to support plaintiff’s claim. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649. 

The amended complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to identify grounds for relief against Mr.

Grguric. The amended complaint vaguely alleges that plaintiff “was denied traditional notions of fair

play, substantial justice” and was denied due process to violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

As a private attorney, Mr. Grguric could not have acted under color of state law to deprive plaintiff of

Case 1:06-cv-00526-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 05/16/06 Page 6 of 8
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

Constitutional privileges and to invoke 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334,

1338 (9 Cir. 1986). The amended complaint fails to provide Mr. Grguric fair notice and to state facts th

to support elements of particular claims. 

Moreover, to the extent that the amended complaint attempts to allege legal malpractice, it is

susceptible to California’s one-year limitations period under Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 340.6(a) in that the

amended complaint references action taken in 1999. Like plaintiff’s original complaint, the amended

complaint appears to make vague allegations to avoid limitations defenses.

Malice

This Court is concerned that plaintiff has brought this action in absence of good faith and

attempts to take advantage of cost-free filing to vex Mr. Grguric. Such attempt to vex Mr. Grguric

provides further grounds to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint in that plaintiff brought another recent

action to address his disability income and which this Court dismissed. See John L. McCarty v.

Jacqueline Mellon, Case No. CV F 05-1650 REC LJO.

RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court RECOMMENDS to DISMISS this action without

prejudice on grounds that: (1) the amended complaint fails to establish this Court’s subject matter

jurisdiction and in personam jurisdiction over Mr. Grguric; (2) the amended complaint fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted; (3) a further attempt at amendment is unwarranted based on

jurisdictional defects, available defenses, and the amended complaint’s deficiencies; and (4) the

amended complaint lacks good faith and exhibits plaintiff’s intent to vex Mr. Grguric. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge assigned

to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 72-304. No later than

May 26, 2006, plaintiff may file written objections to these findings and recommendations with the

Court and serve a copy on the magistrate judge in compliance with this Court’s Local Rule 72-304(b).

Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The district court will then review the magistrate judge’s ruling, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). Plaintiff is admonished that 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).

Case 1:06-cv-00526-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 05/16/06 Page 7 of 8
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

Plaintiff is admonished not to attempt to file an amended complaint as plaintiff’s recourse

is to object to these findings and recommendations. Plaintiff is further admonished this Court will

strike any papers to attempt to file an amended complaint unless this Court specifically grants

plaintiff permission to file an amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00526-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 05/16/06 Page 8 of 8