Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02184/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02184-2/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

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

 This case is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(c).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY HALLFORD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2184 EFB P

vs.

SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO 

COUNTY,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in a civil action that he has

captioned as a “motion for federal judicial intervention” in his state civil action.1

 Dckt. No. 1. 

His “motion” asserts that he has some form of state tort claim pending in state court. Id. at 1. 

He asks that this court order the Sacramento Superior Court to “act with professionalism and due

diligence in all matters brought . . . by pro per litigants,” ensure that “any member of the

Superior Court staff [who acts] outside of the norms of professionalism . . . be disciplined by

whatever regulatory agency has appropriate authority,” assess civil and criminal penalties

against “those found in breach of their judicial ethics,” and “proceed with all Federal Court

Orders forthwith.” Id. at 5. 

Case 2:09-cv-02184-EFB Document 11 Filed 02/08/10 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

2

Plaintiff has also filed a motion “for official reprimand of defendant’s court clerk.” Dckt.

No. 4. This motion appears to stem from an incident where the Sacramento County Superior

court clerk returned a document to plaintiff for the stated reason that “[t]he document submitted

is addressed to the United States Eastern District Court.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff writes that “[t]his is

not a complex document and anyone with at least a Third Grade Education can understand that

plaintiff is providing the defendant a complimentary copy for their records.” Id. at 1. He

therefore asks that the court “issue a stern reprimand” to the clerk of the Superior Court. Id. at 2. 

This court lacks jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s requests. A federal district court does

not have the power to issue writs of mandamus to state courts. Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925

F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991). Neither would construing plaintiff’s motion as an appeal of

an erroneous state court judgment give this court jurisdiction over plaintiff’s request. Federal

district courts do not have jurisdiction to review challenges to state court judgments for legal

errors. Rather, “[r]eview of those decisions may be had only in the [U.S. Supreme] Court.” 

Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U .S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust

Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923). See also Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003) (a

federal plaintiff who seeks relief from a state court judgment based on allegedly erroneous

decision is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the federal court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction). Plaintiff’s motions are therefore denied and this action must be dismissed for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s August 7, 2009 motion for federal judicial intervention is denied. 

2. Plaintiff’s September 21, 2009 motion for official reprimand of defendant court clerks

is denied. 

////

////

////

Case 2:09-cv-02184-EFB Document 11 Filed 02/08/10 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

3

3. This case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Dated: February 8, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02184-EFB Document 11 Filed 02/08/10 Page 3 of 3