Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00578/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00578-0/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

ROBERT M. MEAD,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN INEZ WILLIAMS,

Defendant.

No. 2:20-cv-0578 TLN DB PS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On March 17, 2020, plaintiff Robert Mead commenced this action by filing a complaint 

and paying the applicable filing fee. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Accordingly, 

the matter has been referred to the undersigned for all purposes encompassed by Local Rule 

302(c)(21). Plaintiff’s complaint concerns the parties’ settlement of their March 8, 2005 divorce 

proceedings in the Sacramento County Superior Court. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 1-8.) 

Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry that must precede the adjudication of any case before 

the district court. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 

1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may adjudicate 

only those cases authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 

377 (1994); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-37 (1992). “Federal courts are presumed 

to lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 

////

Case 2:20-cv-00578-DB Document 9 Filed 05/06/20 Page 1 of 5
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

4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 

546 (1986)).

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the court at any time during the 

proceedings. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 

1996). A federal court “ha[s] an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] has 

subject-matter jurisdiction.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). It is the 

obligation of the district court “to be alert to jurisdictional requirements.” Grupo Dataflux v. 

Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004). Without jurisdiction, the district court 

cannot decide the merits of a case or order any relief. See Morongo, 858 F.2d at 1380. 

The basic federal jurisdiction statutes are 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, which confer 

“federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal jurisdiction may also be 

conferred by federal statutes regulating specific subject matter. “[T]he existence of federal 

jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to 

those claims.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 

1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000).

District courts have diversity jurisdiction only over “all civil actions where the matter in 

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” and the action 

is between: “(1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a 

foreign state; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are 

additional parties; and (4) a foreign state . . . as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different 

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “To demonstrate citizenship for diversity purposes a party must (a) be 

a citizen of the United States, and (b) be domiciled in a state of the United States.” Lew v. Moss, 

797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986). “Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between 

the parties-each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.” In re 

Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litigation, 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Moreover, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine a federal district court is precluded from 

hearing “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court 

judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court 

Case 2:20-cv-00578-DB Document 9 Filed 05/06/20 Page 2 of 5
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

review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 

U.S. 280, 284 (2005). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies not only to final state court orders 

and judgments, but to interlocutory orders and non-final judgments issued by a state court as well. 

Doe & Assoc. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001); Worldwide 

Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 893 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1986).

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits “a direct appeal from the final judgment of a state 

court,” Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2003), and “may also apply where the parties 

do not directly contest the merits of a state court decision, as the doctrine prohibits a federal 

district court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a 

state court judgment.” Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). “A suit brought in federal district court is a ‘de facto appeal’ 

forbidden by Rooker-Feldman when ‘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.’” Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Noel, 341 F.3d 

at 1164); see also Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he Rooker-Feldman

doctrine bars federal courts from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over a proceeding in 

‘which a party losing in state court’ seeks ‘what in substance would be 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.’”) (quoting Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 

997, 1005-06 (1994), cert. denied 547 U .S. 1111 (2006)). “Thus, even if a plaintiff seeks relief 

from a state court judgment, such a suit is a forbidden de facto appeal only if the plaintiff also 

alleges a legal error by the state court.” Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 2013).

[A] federal district court dealing with a suit that is, in part, a 

forbidden de facto appeal from a judicial decision of a state court 

must refuse to hear the forbidden appeal. As part of that refusal, it 

must also refuse to decide any issue raised in the suit that is 

‘inextricably intertwined’ with an issue resolved by the state court in 

its judicial decision.

Doe, 415 F.3d at 1043 (quoting Noel, 341 F.3d at 1158); see also Exxon, 544 U.S. at 286 n. 1 (“a 

district court [cannot] entertain constitutional claims attacking a state-court judgment, even if the 

Case 2:20-cv-00578-DB Document 9 Filed 05/06/20 Page 3 of 5
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

state court had not passed directly on those claims, when the constitutional attack [is] 

‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state court’s judgment”) (citing Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482 n. 

16)); Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898, 900 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003) (“claims raised in the 

federal court action are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state court’s decision such that the 

adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling or require the district court to 

interpret the application of state laws or procedural rules”) (citing Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483 n. 16, 

485). 

Here, the complaint alleges that “the State courts refused to consider or dispose the issue 

of subject-matter jurisdiction that was fraudulently acquired and the state courts have resisted in 

hearing collateral attacks on subject matter jurisdiction[.]” (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 9.) 

Moreover, it appears from documents attached to the complaint and the undersigned’s research 

that plaintiff has repeatedly and unsuccessfully challenged the judgment in the Sacramento 

County Superior Court action. See In re Marriage of Mead and Williams-Mead, CO82278, 2019 

WL 1417159, at *1 (Cal. App. 3 Dist., Mar. 29, 2019) (“The divorce settlement spawned lengthy, 

acrimonious litigation, including three prior appeals to this court.”); In re Marriage of Mead and 

Williams-Mead, C073814, 2014 WL 3866012, at *1 (Cal. App. 3 Dist. Aug. 6, 2014) (“After 

nearly 10 years of unsuccessful litigation against his ex-wife, a vexatious lawyer now asserts the 

trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to order him to pay attorney fees following his 

last appeal.”). 

In this regard, it appears that plaintiff is a state court loser and is now inviting this court to

review and reject those judgments. And disputes over marital dissolution fall squarely within the 

Rooker-Feldman bar. See, e.g., Moor v. Cnty. of Butte, 547 Fed. Appx. 826, 829 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(affirming dismissal of suit concerning state court divorce and child custody proceedings on 

Rooker-Feldman grounds); Gomez v. San Diego Family Ct., 388 Fed. Appx. 685 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(affirming dismissal of state court custody decision on Rooker-Feldman grounds); Sareen v. 

Sareen, 356 Fed. Appx. 977 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming dismissal of action alleging constitutional 

violation in state court child custody action on Rooker-Feldman grounds). 

////

Case 2:20-cv-00578-DB Document 9 Filed 05/06/20 Page 4 of 5
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of the date of this order 

plaintiff shall show cause in writing as to why this action should not be dismissed due to a lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction.

Dated: May 5, 2020

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.pro se/mead0578.jx.osc

Case 2:20-cv-00578-DB Document 9 Filed 05/06/20 Page 5 of 5