Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01825/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01825-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert L. Johnson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1825-PHX-MHM

ORDER

On July 24, 2006, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint and a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1 & 3). On July 25, 2006, Plaintiff filed an amended

complaint. (Doc. 4). On July 26, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion for emergency temporary

injunction. (Doc. 5). 

Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis contains the relevant information for

purposes of in forma pauperis status required by LRCiv 3.3, Local Rules of Practice of the

District of Arizona. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is granted. 

 The motion for in forma pauperis requires the Court to screen the complaint. See 28

U.S.C. §§ 1915(a) and (e)(2). In screening a complaint filed with a request to proceed in

forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss the complaint at any time if it is "frivolous" or if it

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),

(ii). 

Case 2:06-cv-01825-MHM Document 6 Filed 08/04/06 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 -

Plaintiff pro se has filed a typewritten complaint and a handwritten amended

complaint. The Court has considered both documents in an effort to ascertain the basis of

Plaintiff's claim for relief. Plaintiff's cause of action appears to involve a child custody

matter that was heard in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, State of Arizona, in or

about January 2005. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive counsel until

October 6, 2005 after he had appealed certain orders and judgments issued by the Superior

Court. Plaintiff contends that Defendant has violated his constitutional rights under the fifth,

sixth and seventh amendments. In his emergency motion for temporary injunction, Plaintiff

requests that Defendant be prohibited from taking any action in the matter of the custody

action until his claim is heard in this Court. 

Courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally, affording the pro se plaintiff

the benefit of any doubt. Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003).

To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking review or appeal of the state court's decision in this

Court, his lawsuit is prohibited by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Rooker-Feldman

doctrine recognizes that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is a grant of original jurisdiction and does not

authorize district courts to exercise appellate review over state court judgments. See Verizon

Maryland. Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland, 535 U.S. 635, 644 n. 3, 122 S.Ct.

1753, 1759 n.3 (2002). In Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003), cert.

denied, 540 U.S. 1213 (2004), the Ninth Circuit observed in the context of the RookerFeldman doctrine that the federal district court, as a court of original jurisdiction, has no

authority to review the final determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings, stating

as follows:

Rooker-Feldman is a powerful doctrine that prevents federal

courts from second-guessing state court decisions by barring the

lower federal courts from hearing de facto appeals from statecourt judgments: If claims raised in the federal court action are

'inextricably intertwined' with the state court's decision such that

the adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state

ruling or require the district court to interpret the application of

state laws or procedural rules, then the federal complaint must

be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ...

Case 2:06-cv-01825-MHM Document 6 Filed 08/04/06 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 -

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is not limited to claims that were actually decided by the state

courts. Review is precluded of all state court decisions in particular cases arising out of

judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state court's action was

unconstitutional. Bianchi, 334 F.3d at 901.

Plaintiff essentially is asking this Court to review the State Courts' judgments and

orders with respect to the custody matter and determine that they are in error and should be

vacated. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides a jurisdictional bar to this Court conducting

such review. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3), whenever it appears that the Court lacks

jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action. See Rosales v. United

States, 824 F.2d 799, 803 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1987)(lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised

at any time and it is the Court's duty to address the issue sua sponte whenever it is

perceived). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.

3) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for emergency temporary

injunction (Doc. 5) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint (Doc. 1) and amended complaint

(Doc. 4) are dismissed with prejudice. 

 DATED this 2nd day of August, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01825-MHM Document 6 Filed 08/04/06 Page 3 of 3