Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00942/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00942-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331ss Fed. Question: Constitutionality of State Statutes

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEO DUNCKLEY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv942-LAB (WVG)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

THE PEOPLE,

Defendant.

This case arises out of a traffic citation issued to Leo Dunckley. He alleges he

“received a citation for allegedly violating a [California] vehicle code,” “was convicted in the

San Diego Superior Court,” and then he appealed through the San Diego Superior Court

Appellate Division, the California Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court. 

(Docket no. 1.) He contends that the citation violated the U.S. Constitution. (Id.) Dunckley

has not prepaid the filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he has filed a Motion

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (Docket no. 2.)

Motion to Proceed IFP

The Court has reviewed Dunckley’s affidavit of assets, just as it would for any other

non-prisoner litigant seeking IFP status, and finds it is sufficient to show that he is unable to

pay the fees or post securities required to maintain a civil action. See CivLR 3.2(d). The

motion to proceed IFP is therefore GRANTED.

/ / /

- 1 - 16cv942

Case 3:16-cv-00942-LAB-WVG Document 3 Filed 04/22/16 Page 1 of 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

Screening

A complaint filed by any person proceeding IFP is subject to sua sponte dismissal,

however, if it is “frivolous, malicious, fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

or seek[s] 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). Through this lawsuit,

Dunckley effectively seeks review of a state court decision. But, under the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine, federal district courts may not exercise appellate jurisdiction over state court final

judgments. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482–86

(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415–16 (1923). And review of state court

decisions may be conducted only by the United States Supreme Court. Feldman, 460 U.S.

at 476, 486; Rooker, 263 U.S. at 416. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies even when the

challenge to the state court decision involves federal constitutional issues. See Dubinka v.

Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 221 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, Dunckley fails to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted by this Court.

This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 22, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 16cv942

Case 3:16-cv-00942-LAB-WVG Document 3 Filed 04/22/16 Page 2 of 2