Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02279/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02279-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

1 11cv2279 BTM(WVG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENDA MOORE,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 11cv2279 BTM(WVG)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

v.

JUDGE B. SCOTT LEEHY, et al.,

Defendants.

On September 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint and a Motion to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (“IFP”). For the reasons discussed below, the IFP Motion is granted, and the

Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

Upon review of Plaintiff’s affidavit in support of her IFP Motion, the Court finds that

Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of inability to pay the filing fee required to prosecute

this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s IFP Motion is GRANTED. 

II. Failure to State a Claim

Although the Court will allow Plaintiff to proceed IFP, Plaintiff’s Complaint must be

dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Court is under a continuing duty to dismiss an IFP

Case 3:11-cv-02279-BTM-WVG Document 3 Filed 10/06/11 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

2 11cv2279 BTM(WVG)

case whenever the Court determines that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may

be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of her due process rights and her equal protection

rights in connection with proceedings in the Fourth Judicial District Court, State of Louisiana,

regarding the disposition of real property in the matter of the succession of Eddie Lee Moore

(“Moore”), Plaintiff’s father. Plaintiff claims that the state court erroneously granted a petition

for possession filed by Moore’s children from his first marriage (defendants Frank Moore and

Elnora Thomas). Plaintiff complains that defendant Judge B. Scott Leehy has denied all of

her requests to set aside the transfer of property, unlawfully appointed a curator (defendant

Amy C. Ellender), and violated her constitutional rights. 

Plaintiff explains that she has made requests to set aside the transfer of property and

to return it to the rightful heirs (Plaintiff and her brothers), but that her requests have been

“denied by the state court and appeals court.” (Petition, p. 6.) Plaintiff requests this court

“to review what the trial court has been given about this case,” “return the property to the

rightful heirs,” and “dismiss the action taken by Judge Leehy awarding almost $2,000,000

to curator Amy Ellender.” (Petition, pp. 6, 8.) 

However, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to void any of the decisions or

judgments entered in the state court action. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal

courts are barred from hearing de facto appeals from state-court judgments. Bianchi v.

Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003). Simply stated, a United States District Court

lacks the authority to disrupt or “undo” a decision of a state court, regardless of whether the

state court’s decision was correct or whether the state court fully and fairly adjudicated the

claim. Id. at 898-900.

Furthermore, absolute immunity is accorded to judges for judicial acts taken within the

jurisdiction of their courts. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). There

are only two sets of circumstances in which immunity is overcome: (1) nonjudicial actions;

and (2) actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction.

Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991). “A judge will not be deprived of immunity

Case 3:11-cv-02279-BTM-WVG Document 3 Filed 10/06/11 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

3 11cv2279 BTM(WVG)

because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his

authority.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978). Based on the record before

the Court, Judge Leehy’s actions were judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of his court.

Therefore, it appears that Judge Leehy is entitled to judicial immunity.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to bring a common law fraud or tort claim against

defendants Frank Moore and Elnora Thomas, Plaintiff has not established that the Court has

subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Because Plaintiff’s constitutional claim fails, no

federal question of law has been presented, and the Court cannot exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over state law claims. Plaintiff has not made any showing that the Court has

diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. The Court

GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint, but reminds Plaintiff that the Court

does not have jurisdiction to change or review any rulings of Judge Leehy and cannot order

the transfer of the property in question to Plaintiff. If Plaintiff chooses to file a First Amended

Complaint, she must do so on or before October 31, 2011. Failure to do so will result in the

closing of this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 6, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02279-BTM-WVG Document 3 Filed 10/06/11 Page 3 of 3