Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03575/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03575-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAL SAIDON SCHWARTZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV. S-09-3575 GEB EFB

vs.

STEVEN SHEA SCHWARTZ, ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant.

 /

This matter is referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(21) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested leave to proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Dckt. No. 2. Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making

the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma

pauperis will be granted. 

However, the determination that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not

complete the required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to

dismiss a case at any time if it determines, inter alia, that the action is frivolous or malicious or 

fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th

Case 2:09-cv-03575-GEB-EFB Document 5 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 7
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

2

Cir. 1984). Thus, the court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably

meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at

327. The critical inquiry is whether a claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal

and factual basis. See Jackson v. Ariz., 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at

1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails

to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-63 (2007) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). To avoid dismissal, the

complaint must set forth “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the

elements of a cause of action.” Id. at 555. Rather, the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to

raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . on the assumption that all the allegations in

the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. (emphasis deleted). Dismissal is

appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient

facts to support cognizable legal theories. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699

(9th Cir. 1990).

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations

of the complaint in question, construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,

and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trs., 425 U.S. 738,

740 (1976); Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Additionally, although pro se

pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), a pro se

plaintiff must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” “in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what

. . . the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

////

Case 2:09-cv-03575-GEB-EFB Document 5 Filed 03/29/10 Page 2 of 7
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

3

The court may disregard allegations contradicted by the complaint’s attached exhibits. 

Durning v. First Boston Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir. 1987); Steckman v. Hart Brewing,

Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir.1998). Furthermore, the court is not required to accept as true

allegations contradicted by judicially noticed facts. Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385,

1388 (9th Cir. 1987). The court may consider matters of public record, including pleadings,

orders, and other papers filed with the court. Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distribs., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282

(9th Cir. 1986) (abrogated on other grounds by Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501

U.S. 104 (1991)).

Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. 

Haines, 404 U.S. at 520-21. Unless it is clear that no amendment can cure its defects, a pro se

litigant is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend the complaint before dismissal. Lopez

v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446,

1448 (9th Cir. 1987). Although the court has an obligation to construe the pleadings of a pro se

litigant liberally, Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc), the court’s

liberal interpretation of a pro se complaint may not supply essential elements of a claim that are

not plead. Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992); Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ.

of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Furthermore, “[t]he court is not required to accept

legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be

drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir.

1994). Neither need the court accept unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. 

W. Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).

Plaintiff’s complaint seeks court enforcement of an Affidavit of Support (Form I-864)

signed by defendant, plaintiff’s ex-husband, in January 2001 in support of his petition for

plaintiff’s permanent residence. Dckt. No. 1. According to plaintiff, by signing the Affidavit of

Support, defendant agreed to support plaintiff and her then-dependent child until the occurrence

of certain specified events, none of which has yet occurred. Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that

Case 2:09-cv-03575-GEB-EFB Document 5 Filed 03/29/10 Page 3 of 7
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

4

defendant filed for divorce from plaintiff in Oklahoma state court in January 2003. Id. On

October 1, 2003, a decree of divorce was entered, which provided that defendant’s obligations to

support plaintiff would terminate on June 1, 2004. Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleges that the divorce

decree did not make findings of facts or conclusions of law regarding the Affidavit of Support,

and the Affidavit was never offered, admitted as evidence, or litigated during the divorce

proceedings. Id.

On June 25, 2004, plaintiff sued defendant in the United States District Court for the

Western District of Oklahoma in order to enforce the Affidavit of Support. Id. That court

denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and the case was proceeding until defendant filed a

bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts in

October 2006. Id. As a result of the bankruptcy filing, the district court case was

administratively closed, with an instruction that the case could be reopened within thirty days

after termination of the bankruptcy proceedings. Id. at 4. 

In January 2007, plaintiff filed adversary proceedings in the bankruptcy court, again

seeking enforcement of the Affidavit of Support. Id. In October 2007, the bankruptcy court

dismissed plaintiff’s adversary complaint, finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction

pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which provides that “lower federal courts lack

jurisdiction over ‘cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by statecourt judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district

court review and rejection of those judgments.’” Schwartz v. Schwartz, 376 B.R. 364, 368, 370

(Bankr. D. Mass. 2007) (quoting Davis v. United States, 499 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 2007)). The

court noted that the divorce decree purported to terminate all of defendant’s support obligations

as of June 1, 2004, and that the parties did “not dispute that the Affidavit was filed in the state

court proceedings.” Id. at 368. Although the divorce decree did “not specify the reasoning

behind its support order,” the court found that under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, it lacked

jurisdiction to review the divorce decree. Id. at 369. The court also noted, in a footnote, that

Case 2:09-cv-03575-GEB-EFB Document 5 Filed 03/29/10 Page 4 of 7
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

5

“[b]y asserting her rights under the Affidavit as support for her property rights claim in the

divorce action, which resulted in a final judgment making certain financial awards to her,

Plaintiff brought her rights before that court and is bound by the final judgment therein. As a

result, she cannot retry her entitlement under the Affidavit in this proceeding because her rights

have been fully adjudicated in another forum.” Id. at 369, n.17. In yet another footnote, the

court noted that even if it “were to have subject matter jurisdiction, abstention appears

appropriate as the issue of the Affidavit has now been raised in two prior courts, both which have

concurrent jurisdiction over whether any obligation under the Affidavit is dischargeable.” Id. at

370, n.18.

In August 2008, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit affirmed the

bankruptcy court’s decision. Schwartz v. Schwartz, 409 B.R. 240 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2008). 

Although the Panel acknowledged that it was “unclear whether the Affidavit was submitted in

the divorce proceedings or whether Oklahoma State Court intended to encompass [plaintiff’s]

claims under the Affidavit of Support when it adjudicated the assets and liabilities of the parties

in the Decree of Divorce,” id. at 249, the Panel found that dismissal was appropriate either way. 

The Panel held that “if, in fact, the Affidavit of Support was submitted in the divorce

proceedings, the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over [plaintiff’s] claims

under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,” and “even if [plaintiff] did not submit the Affidavit of

Support in the divorce proceedings, the end result is the same because [plaintiff’s] claims were

still barred by the doctrine of res judicata.” Id. The Panel noted that all of the elements of res

judicata were present: the Decree of Divorce was “a final state court judgment in a proceeding

between [plaintiff] and [defendant],” and there was “an identity of the cause of action in both

proceedings” since “[t]he divorce proceedings clearly involved [plaintiff’s] claims for support

from [defendant].” Id. Because res judicata bars the parties from not only relitigating the

previously disputed matter but also from introducing any related matters that could have been

offered in the original action, and because plaintiff “could have pursued her support claims under

Case 2:09-cv-03575-GEB-EFB Document 5 Filed 03/29/10 Page 5 of 7
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

6

the under the Affidavit of Support in the divorce proceedings,” the Panel held that plaintiff was

barred from pursuing those support claims in defendant’s bankruptcy case under the doctrine of

res judicata. Id.

Plaintiff now seeks to once again relitigate her claim for enforcement of the Affidavit of

Support. However, for the reasons stated by the First Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel,

plaintiff’s claims herein are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The divorce decree from the

state divorce proceedings was a final judgment, the proceedings were between the instant

plaintiff and defendant, and both the divorce proceedings and the instant action involve

plaintiff’s claims for support from defendant. Even taking as true plaintiff’s allegation herein

that the Affidavit of Support was never offered, admitted as evidence, or litigated during the

divorce proceedings, as the Panel noted, plaintiff could have submitted that Affidavit during

those proceedings. See Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 1982)

(“[T]he doctrine of res judicata (or claim preclusion) ‘bar(s) all grounds for recovery which

could have been asserted, whether they were or not, in a prior suit between the same parties . . .

on the same cause of action.’”) (quoting Ross v. IBEW, 634 F.2d 453, 457 (9th Cir. 1980)). 

Because no amendment will cure the defects in plaintiff’s complaint, the undersigned will

recommend that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith,

203 F.3d 1122, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s

request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. However, IT IS RECOMMENDED that

plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

Case 2:09-cv-03575-GEB-EFB Document 5 Filed 03/29/10 Page 6 of 7
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

7

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 29, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-03575-GEB-EFB Document 5 Filed 03/29/10 Page 7 of 7