Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01261/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01261-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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 3:11-cv-01261 AJB (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS RICOTTA, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY EMPLOYEES

RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, and

ESTATE OF ELLEN RICOTTA,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11-cv-01261 AJB (NLS)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH PREJUDICE; AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT

On June 9, 2011, Plaintiff, a non-prisoner appearing pro se, filed his Complaint (Doc. No. 1)

along with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2). The Complaint alleges violations of

the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131, 12101(9) (“ADA”), by Defendants San Diego

County Employees Retirement Association (“SDCERA”) and the estate of Plaintiff’s ex-wife, Ellen

Ricotta. (Complaint 1-2.) 

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United States,

except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

(2006). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff's failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (2006). See Rodriguez v.

Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).

Case 3:11-cv-01261-AJB-NLS Document 3 Filed 08/24/11 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 3:11-cv-01261 AJB (NLS)

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by any person

seeking to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and sua sponte

review and dismissal by the court to the extent it is “frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir.

2000) (en banc). Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the Court reviewing a complaint filed pursuant to the

in forma pauperis provisions of § 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing that

the complaint be served by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). Lopez, 203 F.3d at

1127. Moreover, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) requires the Court to dismiss an action at any time it

determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

As currently plead, the Complaint does not establish a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. 

Despite Plaintiff’s assertion that the Court has federal question jurisdiction because the suit arises out of

claims under the ADA, Plaintiff’s factual allegations do not implicate the ADA. He does not allege any

facts suggesting that he was discriminated against because of his disability. Nor does the Complaint

describe a “pattern of ‘unnecessary discrimination and prejudice.’” (See Complaint 1-2) (citing 42

U.S.C. §§ 12131, 12101(9).) Instead, it is clear from Plaintiff’s allegations that he seeks this Court’s

review of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) issued by state court. For example, Plaintiff

claims that the SDCERA violated the ADA “by participating in the writing of” the allegedly invalid

QDRO. (Id. at 2.) Also, at least nineteen of the twenty-three pages of the Complaint are dedicated to

case law and argument supporting the assertion that the QDRO is invalid. (See id. at 3-22.) The

“PRAYER FOR RELIEF” section of the Complaint requests injunctive relief until “these issues are

resolved,” referring to the assertion that the QDRO is invalid, and also explicitly requests the QDRO be

found invalid. (Id. at 22.)

The Complaint informs us that Plaintiff has appealed the validity of the QDRO to the California

Appellate Court and the California Supreme Court to no avail. (Id. at 3.) But, “a United States District

Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings.” District of

Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars

Case 3:11-cv-01261-AJB-NLS Document 3 Filed 08/24/11 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 3:11-cv-01261 AJB (NLS)

suits “brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered

before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those

judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indust. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). In recent

Ninth Circuit case, the court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applied where a district court

plaintiff claimed that a family court order was based on erroneous law and deprived her of benefits to

which she had a vested interest. Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1051 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, the

district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman because the plaintiff

asserted her injury was caused by legal error by the state court and that the appropriate remedy was

relief from the state court judgment. Id. Here, Plaintiff asserts substantially similar claims for relief that

are likewise unavailable in this Court.

Therefore, the Court finds the Complaint fails to establish subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the instant Complaint must be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3). As such, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is hereby DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 24, 2011

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01261-AJB-NLS Document 3 Filed 08/24/11 Page 3 of 3