Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02559/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02559-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD A. SHAPIRO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv2559 WQH BLM

ORDER

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Referral Notice filed by the Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 15).

On November 3, 2011, Plaintiff Shapiro, a nonprisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this

action by filing the Complaint and the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). 

(ECF Nos. 1-2). On November 8, 2011, the Court granted the Motion for Leave to Proceed

in Forma Pauperis and dismissed the Complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(I). (ECF No. 3). The Court stated: “The Complaint contains rambling

allegations lacking an arguable basis in fact or law ....” Id. at 2-3. 

On December 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Re-Open the Case and filed a

Proposed First Amended Complaint asserting a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 6). 

On December 14, 2011, this Court issued an Order concluding that the Court did not have

subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Proposed First Amended Complaint. This Court

stated:

- 1 - 11cv2559 WQH BLM

Case 3:11-cv-02559-WQH-BLM Document 16 Filed 03/13/12 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

The Proposed First Amended Complaint alleges that the state “trial

court Pro Tem dismissed the testimony” of Plaintiff’s witness and

refused to hear audio tape produced by Plaintiff. The Pro Tem “refused

to grant [Plaintiff] community service after finding him guilty of not

putting on his blinker.” (ECF No. 6 at 2). Plaintiff alleges that “The

appellate division refused to make allowances for extraordinary

circumstances in filing [Plaintiff’s] appeal....” Id. Plaintiff alleges that

the appellate division refused to hear his matter. On December 2, 2011,

Plaintiff filed the Motion for Stay of All Penalties. (ECF No. 8). The

Motion for Stay of All Penalties states that Plaintiff is unable to pay

“this blinker ticket ... [and] requests herein that all penalties by stayed

until this matter is finalized in the District Court ....” (ECF No. 8 at 1). 

“[A] United States District Court has no authority to review final

judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings.” District of

Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983)

(explaining that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over

the claim and a “[r]eview of such judgments may be had only in [the

Supreme] Court.”); see also Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413

(1923) (“Rooker-Feldman”); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1161 (9th

Cir. 2003); Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 892-93

(9th Cir. 1986). “If a federal plaintiff 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, Rooker-Feldman bars

subject matter jurisdiction in federal district court.” Mooney v. Boli, Case No. C 06-7875 SI, 2007 WL 781973 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13,

2007).

There are two statutory exceptions to the principle that district

courts may not review state court judgments including: (1) petitions for

writ of habeas corpus brought by state prisoners who claim that the

state court has made an error of federal law; and (2) bankruptcy courts

modifying, avoiding, or discharging state judgments. Noel, 341 F.3d

at 1155 (citations omitted). 

In this case, Plaintiff has filed a Cause of Action for Violation

of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking review of a final judgment of the state

court. The Court concludes that it does not have subject matter

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Proposed First Amended Complaint. The

Court concludes that this case does not fit a statutory exception

permitting the exercise of jurisdiction on the grounds that the case is

not a petition for writ of habeas corpus and the case is not a bankruptcy

appeal. 

(ECF No. 9 at 2-3).

Plaintiff filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 6,

2012, the Court of Appeals filed a Referral Notice stating: 

 This matter is referred to the district court for the limited purpose of

determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this

appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); see also Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d

1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (revocation of forma pauperis status is

appropriate where district court finds the appeal to be frivolous).

- 2 - 11cv2559 WQH BLM

Case 3:11-cv-02559-WQH-BLM Document 16 Filed 03/13/12 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

(ECF No. 15 at 1). 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides: “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the

trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” For the reasons stated in the

Court Order dismissed the Complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I). 

(ECF No. 3) and dismissing the First Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction (ECF No. 9), this Court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 13, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cv2559 WQH BLM

Case 3:11-cv-02559-WQH-BLM Document 16 Filed 03/13/12 Page 3 of 3