Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00953/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00953-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANA K. WILLIAMS,

Case No. 1:07-cv-0953-OWW-TAG

Plaintiff, 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

vs. TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 

WITH PREJUDICE 

MADERA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE (Doc. 5).

EDWARD P. MOFFAT, BRUCE

FRANCES KENNEDY, et al., ORDER DIRECTING THAT 

OBJECTIONS BE FILED WITHIN

Defendants. FIFTEEN DAYS 

 /

Plaintiff Lana K. Williams (“Williams”), a non-prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, filed a civil complaint related to alleged wrongful actions committed by the state court

judge and others in connection with the probate of her father’s estate. (Doc. 1). Pursuant to Court

order, Williams filed an amended complaint on September 6, 2007. (Docs. 3, 5). 

1. Screening. 

The undersigned has screened Williams’s amended complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B), which requires the dismissal of a case at any time if the court determines that it

(1) “is frivolous or malicious,” or (2) “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or (3)

“seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.§

1915A(b)(1) and (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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, 1227-1228 (9th Cir. 1984). A claim should not be dismissed for failure

Case 1:07-cv-00953-OWW -TAG Document 10 Filed 10/16/07 Page 1 of 6
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

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can

prove no set of facts that would entitle plaintiff to relief on that claim. Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir.

1981). 

2. Amended Complaint.

In her amended complaint, Williams alleges that the defendants – the Superior Court judge

who handled the probate case, administrators, trustees, and attorneys – deprived her of an expected

inheritance, including a check in the amount of $490,000, denied her request for an itemized list of

the decedent’s assets, and did not properly marshal, account for, or distribute the decedent’s assets.

(Doc. 5, pp. 1-4). Williams alleges that not all of the estate’s assets were probated, and that some

of the probate documents include, inter alia, forged deeds. (Doc. 5, p.2). Williams also makes

additional allegations against the state court probate judge, attorneys, and a Madera County

employee. Williams asserts that the judge had a conflict of interest for a variety of reasons, including

that he denied her request for an itemized list of the decedent’s assets, denied her access to a check,

failed to conduct annual court reviews, and failed to conduct proper sales of estate properties. (Id.).

Williams alleges that at least one attorney committed legal malpractice. (Doc. 5, pp. 2-3). Under the

heading of “libel,” Williams also alleges that a Madera County employee yelled at her when she

attempted to pick up her distribution check from the Madera County Controller. (Id.). 

3. Jurisidiction.

Federal courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution,

laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. 1331. Historically, federal courts have lacked

authority over probate matters. Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 298-299 (2006). In Marshall,

the Supreme Court held that the probate exception to federal jurisdiction “reserves to state probate

courts the probate or annulment of a will and the administration of a decedent’s estate; it also

precludes federal courts from endeavoring to dispose of property that is in the custody of a state

Case 1:07-cv-00953-OWW -TAG Document 10 Filed 10/16/07 Page 2 of 6
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

probate court.” Marshall, 547 U.S. at 311-312. The Supreme Court further held that the probate

exception “does not bar federal courts from adjudicating matters outside those confines and

otherwise within federal jurisdiction.” Id. Thus, when a plaintiff seeks to accomplish the

administration of a decedent’s estate, to probate or annul a will, to achieve a purely probate remedy,

or to reach a res in the custody of a state court, a federal court must decline jurisdiction. See

Lefkowitz v. Bank of New York, 2007 WL 1839756, at *2 (2d Cir. June 28, 2007). 

A. Administration of Decedent’s Estate/Judicial Immunity.

Williams’s amended claims regarding the decedent’s assets seek to unwind the state court’s

probate orders regarding the administration of the decedent’s estate and the distribution of its assets.

For example, under the heading of “itemized list,” Williams requests “an itemized list and a proper

accounting of any deductions in [the state court probate action].” (Doc. 5, p. 1, lines 25-26). Under

the heading of “expected inheritance,” Williams alleges that she expected $490,000 in assets, that

the decedent owned 12 real properties, that title to at least one of them should have been transferred

to her, and that she objected to various real property sales. (Doc. 5, p.3, lines 15-25). Under the

heading of “land disputes,” Williams alleges that a property was sold for less than what a beneficiary

testified that he could have sold it for, that defendants “ used estate money to maintain properties and

then sell to their friends and City of Madera,” and that a beneficiary and former administrator’s

attorney was removed for cause when he mishandled and misappropriated estate assets. (Doc. 5, p.

3, lines 20-28, p. 4, lines 1-17). Claims regarding the accounting of estate assets, the manner in

which they are marshaled, sold, and ultimately distributed, fall within the ambit of estate

administration and are the types of matters that are reserved to the jurisdiction of the state probate

court. See Marshall, 547 U.S. at 311-312; Markham , 326 U.S. at 494. 

The majority of Williams’s amended allegations against defendant Judge Edward P. Moffat

are characterized as “conflict of interest” claims; however the nature of these allegations is an

objection to the mannerin which the estate was administered and Williams’s dissatisfaction with the

Case 1:07-cv-00953-OWW -TAG Document 10 Filed 10/16/07 Page 3 of 6
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

The amended complaint also alleges without explanation that the state court judge “was 1

directly involved in Williams’s mother’s missing assets.” (Doc. 5, p.2, lines 4-5). 

4

state court’s probate orders, including the final order of distribution. For example, under the heading

of “conflict of interest,” Williams alleges that the judge denied her an itemized list for distribution,

denied her access to a check, accepted only silent bids for properties, sold properties for under

market value, and did not account for rental incomes. Characterizing these allegations as conflict 1

of interest claims does not remove them from the zone of matters involved in the administration of

a decedent’s estate. Moreover, judges are immune from civil actions for judicial acts taken within

their jurisdiction. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988); Imbler v. Pachtamn, 424 U.S. 409,

418, 423 n. 12 (1976); Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988). Judicial

immunity is a “sweeping form of immunity” that insulates judges from charges of error or

irregularity, even when the judge is accused of acting with malicious or corrupt motives or of

committing grave procedural errors. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. at 226-228; Stump v. Sparkman,

435 U.S. 349, 359 (1979). 

B. Legal Malpractice Claim. 

The amended complaint also includes what appears to be a legal malpractice claim against

another attorney involved in the probate case. Under the heading of “rights to bonds and legal

malpractice,” Williams alleges that she “has filed on the bond and is also requesting a jury trial to

obtain Bruce Frances (sic) Kennedy’s legal malpractice insurance.” (Doc. 5, p.2, lines 26-26, p. 3,

lines 1-2). The final order of distribution refers to Bruce Francis Kennedy as the attorney for a

special administrator of the estate. (Doc. 5, pp. 11, 17). A legal malpractice claim is a state law

claim. See Aragon v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 1447, 1457-1458 (9th Cir. 1985).

Accordingly, the district court lacks original jurisdiction over this claim. Further, Williams’s

amended complaint does not allege that she and the defendants are citizens of different states; thus

there is no alleged basis for diversity jurisdiction over this claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (district court

Case 1:07-cv-00953-OWW -TAG Document 10 Filed 10/16/07 Page 4 of 6
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

has diversity jurisdiction of civil actions when amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is

a total diversity of citizenship of the parties). Finally, the district court lacks supplemental

jurisdiction over this claim because there is no federal claim to which it may be appended. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367(a) (district court has discretionary supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim in civil

action when it has original jurisdiction and the state law claim forms part of the same case or

controversy).

C. Defamation Claim. 

Williams’s amended complaint also contains a claim against a Madera County employee,

which it includes under the heading of “libel.” Doc. 5, p. 3, lines 3-19). Libel is a state law tort

claim and a form of defamation. In California, defamation is “the intentional publication of a

statement of fact that is false, unprivileged, and has a natural tendency to injure or which causes

special damage.” Smith v. Maldonado, 72 Cal. App. 4th 637, 645 (1999); California Civil Code §§

44-46. The amended complaint alleges that Madera County employee Sherri Decker “verbally

attacked [Williams] and began yelling and screaming” at her when she went to pick up her

distribution check. (Doc. 5, p.3, lines 10-17). It does not allege the substance of any defamatory

statement or that it was communicated to a third person. The Court concludes that the amended

complaint fails to allege a cognizable claim for defamation, and that the district court lacks

jurisdiction over this claim because there is no federal claim to which it may be appended and no

basis for diversity jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION 

The amended complaint does not allege that the parties are citizens of different states. Thus,

there is no diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The amended complaint contains no claims that

arise under federal law. 28 U.S.C. 1331. The amended complaint contains no allegations that justify

supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) . Based on the forgoing, the

Court concludes that the amended complaint fails to allege a cognizable claim upon which relief may

Case 1:07-cv-00953-OWW -TAG Document 10 Filed 10/16/07 Page 5 of 6
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

be granted by the federal court. Because Williams’s claims cannot be amended to allege facts

outside of the realm of the administration of the decedent’s estate, and because she has twice failed

to allege any basis for either federal question or diversity jurisdiction and it appears that granting

further leave to amend would be futile, the Court will recommend that the instant case be dismissed

with prejudice. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The amended complaint (Doc. 5) be DISMISSED with prejudice.

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)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

fifteen (15) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Williams may file

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

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The District Judge will then review the Magistrate

Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Williams is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Judge’s order.

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00953-OWW -TAG Document 10 Filed 10/16/07 Page 6 of 6