Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02130/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02130-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

18cv2130-LAB (MDD)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYLVIA SANTOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICE DEPOT INC. , et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv2130-LAB (MDD)

ORDER ELECTING NOT TO 

REVOKE IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

STATUS

When the Court ordered Plaintiff Sylvia Santos to show cause why this action 

should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, she filed a response that failed to 

address the Rooker-Feldman problem the Court had identified. Specifically, it 

appeared Santos had already litigated her claims to a final judgment in state court, 

and because Santos at length asked this Court to rectify the state court’s denial of 

due process and other alleged errors, it appeared this action represented a de 

facto appeal from that court’s judgment. See Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 

F.3d 855, 858–59 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Because Santos bore the burden of establishing jurisdiction, and because 

she failed to do so when the problem was pointed out to her, jurisdiction is 

presumed to be lacking. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 

Case 3:18-cv-02130-LAB-MDD Document 36 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv2130-LAB (MDD)

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

375, 377 (1994); Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 

2006). Although Santos did not address it—and thus did not meet her burden of 

establishing jurisdiction—the possibility remained that the state court judgment 

became final only after Santos filed this action. In that case, Rooker-Feldman

would not apply, but claim preclusion (which Defendant had raised in a motion to 

dismiss) would bar her claim. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 

544 U.S. 280, 293 (2005). Until Santos established jurisdiction, the Court could not 

reach the merits, including this issue. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better 

Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 98 (1998). Nevertheless, this issue looms in the 

background, such that even if Rooker-Feldman were inapplicable, Santos’ claims 

would still be dismissed with prejudice. The Court dismissed Santos’ claims without 

leave to amend, while noting that it would have dismissed on the basis of res 

judicata if jurisdiction were not lacking.

Santos then took an appeal, and the Ninth Circuit asked the Court to 

determine whether her in forma pauperis status should continue for the appeal.

Although Santos is appealing the dismissal of this action, her notice of appeal does 

not identify the claims or issues she intends to argue. The procedural history of 

Santos’ claim in state court is not completely straightforward, and Santos’

arguments about it were not particularly clear or easy to follow. While the Court 

believes its decision was correct, at the same time it cannot say with absolute

confidence that Santos has no non-frivolous issue on appeal. Because only a 

single non-frivolous issue or claim is necessary to render the appeal non-frivolous, 

Hooker v. Am. Airlines, 302 F. 3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002), the Court cannot 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-02130-LAB-MDD Document 36 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv2130-LAB (MDD)

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

certify the appeal as frivolous or brought in bad faith. The Court therefore elects 

not to revoke Santos’ in forma pauperis status.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2019

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02130-LAB-MDD Document 36 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3