Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03031/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03031-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

HARVEY BLIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03031-KAW 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7

The Court has received Plaintiff's complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis, 

both filed in this Court on June 30, 2015. The Court may authorize a plaintiff to file an action in 

federal court without prepayment of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing 

that he or she is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Since

Plaintiff appears to meet the requirements for IFP status, his request is GRANTED.

The in forma pauperis statute also provides that the Court shall dismiss the case if at any 

time the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or that the action (1) is frivolous 

or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

It is impossible to discern from Plaintiff's complaint any of the essential details of the 

events that triggered this lawsuit, or the legal theories under which he seeks relief. Plaintiff has 

failed to set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 

relief" as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, pursuant to its 

authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court hereby dismisses Plaintiff's complaint with 

leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint no later than August 7, 2015 or the case 

may be dismissed with prejudice.

Case 3:15-cv-03031-EMC Document 9 Filed 07/20/15 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

Furthermore, based on subsequent filings—including two separate documents partially 

captioned as a “notice of appeal”— it appears that Plaintiff is attempting to appeal rulings in a 

state court case. (Dkt. Nos. 6 & 7.) If that is true, the district court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.1The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “bars a 

district court from exercising jurisdiction not only over an action explicitly styled as a direct 

appeal,” but also “the de facto equivalent of such an appeal.” Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1155 

(9th Cir. 2003). To determine whether an action functions as a de facto appeal, we “pay close 

attention to the relief sought by the federal court plaintiff.” Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 

900 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). An action functions as a 

forbidden de facto appeal when the plaintiff is: “[1] assert[ing] as his injury legal errors by the 

state court and [2] see[king] as his remedy relief from the state court judgment.” Kougasian v. 

TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163). Instead of 

seeking relief in federal district court, Plaintiff’s only recourse for relief from a state court ruling 

or judgment is to appeal to the California Courts of Appeal.

Accordingly, if Plaintiff’s complaint seeks to appeal a state court ruling, it is likely barred 

by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and he should not amend his complaint. If not, Plaintiff shall 

file an amended complaint no later than August 7, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2015

______________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine derives its name from two United States Supreme Court cases: 

District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), and Rooker v. Fidelity 

Trust Company, 263 U.S. 413 (1923).

Case 3:15-cv-03031-EMC Document 9 Filed 07/20/15 Page 2 of 2