Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01518/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01518-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CYNTHIA D. DAVIS-KNOTTS,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01518-VC 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S

SUBMISSIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 7, 8, 9

On April 8, 2015, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint because it failed to state a 

claim on which relief can be granted. The plaintiff has since filed a number of documents with the 

Court in an apparent effort to update her complaint. In light of these filings, the Court offers the 

following clarification:

 If the plaintiff wishes to amend her complaint, she will need to file an entirely new 

complaint. To avoid dismissal, the new complaint should address the issues identified 

in the Court's April 8, 2015 Order dismissing the plaintiffs' original complaint.

 The plaintiff should be aware that, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if the 

plaintiff wishes to bring claims against a number of individuals or entities based on 

based on unrelated facts or occurrences, the plaintiff will need to bring these claims as 

separate cases. See Fed R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).

 The plaintiff should also be aware that federal courts have limited jurisdiction over 

state-law issues. As a result, it will not be possible to transfer to her ongoing 

California Department of Fair Employment and Housing case to this Court. And to the 

extent that the plaintiff is asking this Court to review a decision from a state court 

unlawful detainer action, the Supreme Court has made clear that federal district courts 

lack jurisdiction to review final state court judgments. See District of Columbia Court 

of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 

U.S. 413, 416 (1923).

Case 3:15-cv-01518-VC Document 10 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

Finally, the Court strongly recommends that the plaintiff seek the assistance of the Legal 

Help Center, located on the 15th Floor of the San Francisco Courthouse.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2015

______________________________________

 VINCE CHHABRIA

 United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01518-VC Document 10 Filed 04/13/15 Page 2 of 2