Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01200/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01200-0/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-KAW 

ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS APPLICATION; REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2

On February 18, 2020, Plaintiffs Elen Meder and Walter Meder filed this civil action and 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. Having considered the application, the Court GRANTS 

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court now screens Plaintiff’s complaint 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and, for the reasons set forth below, concludes that the Court lacks 

jurisdiction over the case. Accordingly, the Court REASSIGNS the case to a district judge with 

the recommendation that the case be dismissed with prejudice.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The in forma pauperis statute provides that the Court shall dismiss the case if at any time 

the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or that the action (1) is frivolous or 

malicious, (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. § 1915(e)(2). 

A complaint is frivolous under Section 1915 where there is no subject matter jurisdiction. 

See Castillo v. Marshall, 207 F.3d 15, 15 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted); see also Pratt v. Sumner, 

807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 19987) (recognizing the general proposition that a complaint should be 

dismissed as frivolous on Section 1915 review where subject matter jurisdiction is lacking).

Case 3:20-cv-01200-WHO Document 5 Filed 03/06/20 Page 1 of 4
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

II. DISCUSSION

As courts of limited jurisdiction, “federal courts have an independent obligation to ensure 

that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 

562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting 

that district courts are “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [they] have subject matter 

jurisdiction”). There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A 

district court has federal question jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, 

laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. at § 1331. 

The Court lacks jurisdiction over the case per the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The RookerFeldman doctrine deprives the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear direct appeals from the 

judgment of state courts. Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 777 (9th Cir. 2012). The purpose of 

the doctrine is to “protect state judgments from collateral federal attack.” Doe & Assocs. Law 

Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine not 

only “bars a district court from exercising jurisdiction . . . over an action explicitly styled as a 

direct appeal,” but also “the de facto equivalent of such an appeal.” Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 

1155 (9th Cir. 2003). To determine whether an action functions as a de facto appeal, the Court 

must “pay close attention to the relief sought by the federal court plaintiff.” Bianchi v. 

Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation omitted). An action functions 

as a forbidden de facto appeal when the plaintiff is “[1] asserting as his injury legal errors by the 

state court and [2] see[king] as his remedy relief from the state court judgment.” Kougasian v. 

TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163).

Here, Plaintiffs allege that they were erroneously denied County Adult Assistance 

Programs (“CAAP”) aid by Defendant City and County of San Francisco Human Services Agency 

because Defendant found that Plaintiffs were not permanently living in the United States. (Compl. 

at 4, Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiffs, however, contend that per 20 C.F.R. § 416.1618’s definition of when 

a person is considered to be “permanently residing in the United States under color of law,” they 

are permanently living in the United States. (Id.) In or around October 2017, Plaintiffs appealed, 

Case 3:20-cv-01200-WHO Document 5 Filed 03/06/20 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and the CAAP hearing officer affirmed the denial of benefits. (Id. at 5.)

Plaintiffs then filed a petition for writ of mandate before the San Francisco County 

Superior Court. (Compl. at 6, Exh. D.) On July 10, 2018, the San Francisco County Superior 

Court denied Plaintiffs’ petition. (Id.) Plaintiffs then appealed to the California Court of Appeal, 

who affirmed the state court judgment on October 18, 2019. (Compl. at 6, Exh. E.) Plaintiffs 

sought review from the California Supreme Court, who denied their petition on January 15, 2020. 

(Compl. at 6, Exh. E.)

While Plaintiffs do not explicitly state that they are appealing state court decisions, 

Plaintiffs are effectively seeking to overturn adverse decisions. Specifically, Plaintiffs now 

request that this Court to grant them “the same individual remedy [they] were denied in state 

court,” i.e., to find that they are permanently residing in the United States per 20 C.F.R. § 

416.1618 and entitled to the CAAP benefits that they were denied. (Compl. at 7; see also Bianchi, 

334 F.3d at 898.) In so doing, Plaintiffs bring a forbidden appeal of the state court decisions by 

challenging legal conclusions, including asserting that the Court of Appeal committed legal error 

by misinterpreted Hoolly v. Lavine, 533 F.2d 845 (2d Cir. 1977). (Compl. at 6, Exh. E at 6-7; cf. 

Manufactured Home Cmtys., Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022, 1030 (9th Cir. 2005).) 

Further, the instant suit is inextricably intertwined with the state court decision, as granting 

Plaintiffs the relief sought would require second-guessing the state court decisions, which is not 

permitted by Rooker-Feldman. Bianchi, 334 F.3d at 898. Thus, “the United States District Court, 

as a court of original jurisdiction, has no authority to review the final determinations of a state 

court in judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).

Moreover, even if Rooker-Feldman did not apply, there does not appear to be federal 

question jurisdiction in this case. Plaintiffs rely solely upon 20 C.F.R. § 416.1618 for federal 

question jurisdiction; this regulation, however, merely defines when an individual is permanently 

residing in the United States under color of law. (See Compl. at 2.) It does not, on its own, appear 

to grant any enforceable rights with respect to benefits. The Court also notes that the CAAP 

program is not a federal program, but locally funded. (See News Release, City and County of San 

Francisco Office of the Mayor, Mayor London Breed Announces $9.8 million Increase in Income 

Case 3:20-cv-01200-WHO Document 5 Filed 03/06/20 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Assistance for Low-income San Franciscans (July 18, 2019), available at

https://sfmayor.org/article/mayor-london-breed-announces-98-million-increase-income-assistancelow-income-san (“Through CAAP, San Francisco provides locally-funded cash aid and social 

services to extremely low-income residents with no dependent children.”).)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the complaint is insufficient to satisfy Section 1915 

review.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court recommends that the case be dismissed with 

prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge 

within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); N.D. 

Civil L.R. 72-3. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS 

Controls Corp., No. C-10-5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2020

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:20-cv-01200-WHO Document 5 Filed 03/06/20 Page 4 of 4