Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01412/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01412-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AUDREY KING, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14-cv-01412-LJO-BAM

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(ECF No. 1)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Findings and Recommendations

Plaintiff Gregory Ell Shehee (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on September 10, 2014, is 

currently before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

I. Screening Requirement

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the 

court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal ... fails 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 

L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must 

Case 1:14-cv-01412-LJO-BAM Document 7 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 3
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

set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on

its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual allegations are accepted as true, 

legal conclusions are not. Id.

II. Discussion

Plaintiff is seeking to appeal an order of the Fresno County Superior Court sustaining the 

demurrer, without leave to amend, of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants 

King and Maylin in Shehee v. California Nonprofit Benefit Inc., et al., Superior Court Case No. 

12 CECG03919 (Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District Case No. F069009). Plaintiff also 

appears to seek review of the California Supreme Court’s denial of his petition for review. 

A federal district court may not exercise appellate jurisdiction over a state court final 

judgment. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86, 103 

S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 

149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). The district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Plaintiff’s section 1983 action amounts to a de facto appeal of 

a state court judgment. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2003) (“If a federal 

plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief 

from a state court judgment based on that decision, Rooker–Feldman bars subject matter 

jurisdiction in federal district court.”). 

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The deficiencies 

at issue are not curable through amendment. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 

2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, it is HEREBY 

RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file 

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Case 1:14-cv-01412-LJO-BAM Document 7 Filed 02/12/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s 

factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 

Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01412-LJO-BAM Document 7 Filed 02/12/15 Page 3 of 3