Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00774/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00774-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LEONA CANNON, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-00774 SI

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AS

TO DEFENDANTS LEONA CANNON

AND CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO; AND NOTING FAILURE

TO SERVE AND IMMINENT

DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

On February 6, 2007, plaintiff James Johnson filed a complaint against three defendants: Leona

Cannon, the City & County of San Francisco (“the City”), and Allstate Insurance Company. Plaintiff

apparently filed the complaint after a tree located on Cannon’s property fell onto plaintiff’s house. The

complaint attempts to state three causes of action: (1) violation of plaintiff’s constitutional right to due

process and equal protection; (2) denial of reasonable accommodation under the Americans with

Disabilities Act; and (3) nuisance.

On March 5, 2007, Cannon filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff did not file an

opposition to the motion or appear at the April 17, 2007 hearing on the motion. Magistrate Judge

Laporte reviewed the papers and issued a Report and Recommendation that the Court grant Cannon’s

motion. On April 11, 2007, the City filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff did not file

an opposition to the motion, and Magistrate Judge Laporte issued a Report and Recommendation that

the Court grant the City’s motion. The action was subsequently reassigned to the undersigned District

Judge. No objections to the Reports and Recommendations have been received from any party.

This Court has reviewed de novo the files and records in this case, and the Reports and

Recommendations issued by Judge Laporte. This Court concurs in and adopts Judge Laporte’s findings

Case 3:07-cv-00774-SI Document 19 Filed 07/02/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

and analysis; and finds that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim against the City and fails to state

a claim or establish federal jurisdiction with respect to defendant Cannon. 

In addition, plaintiff’s first cause of action, which appears to challenge a ruling issued in San

Francisco Superior Court, may be barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Under the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine, the United States District Court has no authority to review the final determinations of a state

court in judicial proceedings. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476

(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923) (holding district courts may not

exercise appellate jurisdiction over state courts). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes not only

review of decisions of the state’s highest court, but also those of its lower courts. See Dubinka v. Judges

of Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 221 (9th Cir. 1994). A challenge under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine

is a challenge for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and may be raised at any time by either party or sua

sponte by the Court. Moccio v. Office of Court Administration, 95 F.3d 195, 198 (2d Cir. 1996); Olson

Farms, Inc. v. Barbosa, 134 F.3d 933, 937 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Rooker-Feldman is a jurisdictional doctrine,

rather than a res judicata doctrine.”).

In accordance with Judge Laporte’s reports and recommendations, the Court hereby GRANTS

defendant Cannon’s motion to dismiss the first and second causes of action without leave to amend and

declines to exercise jurisdiction over the third cause of action; and GRANTS the City of San Francisco’s

motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Defendant Allstate has not appeared in this action, and plaintiff has not filed proof of service on

Allstate with the Court. Because more than 120 days have passed since plaintiff filed this action,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the Court will dismiss plaintiff’s action with

respect to Allstate unless plaintiff, no later than July 17, 2007, provides proof of service.

[Docket Nos. 4 & 11] 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00774-SI Document 19 Filed 07/02/07 Page 2 of 2