Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01200/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01200-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City and County of San Francisco, Human Service Agency
Defendant
Elen Meder
Plaintiff
Walter Meder
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELEN MEDER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, HUMAN SERVICE 

AGENCY,

Defendant.

Case No. 20-cv-01200-WHO 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; DISMISISNG 

CASE WITH PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 5, 8

Plaintiffs Elen and Walter Meder filed this case, along with an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis, on February 18, 2020. In their complaint, the Meders challenge the decision of 

the Human Services Agency (HSA) of the City and County San Francisco (CCSF) to deny their 

application for County Adult Assistance Programs (CAAP). Dkt. No. 1. 

This case was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. On March 6, 

2020, Judge Westmore issued a Report and Recommendation granting the Meders’ IFP 

application but dismissing their complaint with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 5. 

After thoroughly reviewing the complaint, its attachments, and the caselaw, Judge Westmore 

determined that plaintiffs’ complaint was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the 

relief plaintiffs seek – an award of CAAP benefits as “permanent residents” under 20 C.F.R. § 

416.1618 – was denied by HSA and appealed by plaintiffs to the Superior Court and that decision 

was ultimately affirmed by the California Court of Appeal. Dkt. No. 5 at 2-3. Judge Westmore 

also concluded that even if not barred by Rooker-Feldman, there is no subject matter jurisdiction 

because no claim was asserted under Federal law. Id. at 3-4.

Case 3:20-cv-01200-WHO Document 11 Filed 03/24/20 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Meders filed a motion for de novo review, objecting to Judge Westmore’s Report and 

Recommendation, on March 23, 2020. Dkt. No. 8. In their motion, the Meders argue that their 

complaint is not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and that subject matter jurisdiction exists 

because they should be considered “permanent residents” for purposes of CAAP under a federal 

regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 416.1618. Id.

Having reviewed the legal conclusions in Judge Westmore’s Report and Recommendation 

de novo, and having considered the Meders’ objections to it, I adopt the Report and 

Recommendation in every respect. The Meders’ complaint is barred by the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine as it seeks to challenge (and reverse the outcome) of the HSA determination that the 

Meders challenged in Superior Court and that was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal. 

There is also no independent federal question jurisdiction. Although the Meyers’ claim they are 

permanent residents as defined by a federal regulation, they assert no violation of a federal statute 

in the denial of their claim for benefits by CCSF.

The complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Meders’ requests for permission 

for electronic case filing (Dkt. Nos. 3, 9) are DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2020

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:20-cv-01200-WHO Document 11 Filed 03/24/20 Page 2 of 2