Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01015/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01015-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sean Geddes
Defendant
Michael Vigil
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL VIGIL, No. CIV.S-06-1015 DFL DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER AND

SEAN GEDDES, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendant.

____________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested

leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-

302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the request to

proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

As far as the court can ascertain, plaintiff’s three-page

complaint arises out of a Small Claims Court action involving damage

to an automobile. That Small Claims action was brought by an

Case 2:06-cv-01015-RRB-DAD Document 3 Filed 08/11/06 Page 1 of 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

2

individual named Ray Ybarra against a “truck shop.” Apparently, that

shop caused some damage to the fuel tank of Mr. Ybarra’s truck. Mr.

Ybarra then hired plaintiff to repair that damage, which cost

approximately $800, and sued the shop for damages.

According to the complaint, the Small Claims action

resulted in an award for Mr. Ybarra, but only in the amount of $200. 

Plaintiff disagrees with that award, presumably because it is far

less than the $800 he was owed by Mr. Ybarra. The complaint alleges

that defendant Sean Geddes, the judge pro tem in the Small Claims

Court action, sided with the truck shop in awarding only $200 in

damages as a result of racial prejudice. According to the somewhat

difficult to decipher and distorted allegations of the complaint,

plaintiff and Mr. Ybarra are Mexican-Americans and defendant Geddes

is:

[A] Former [Ku] Klux Klan member and a White

Supremacy member in his Youth spreading White

Supremacy [literature throughout] California has

[wholly demonstrated] racial hate crimes in a

Court Room in California Presiding as a Judge Pro

[Tem].

(Compl. at 2.) The complaint prays for $150,000 in damages against

Mr. Geddes and also alleges: “If Judge Pro Temp Sean Geddes has a

racial Problem Sean Geddes should do humanity a Favor and resign his

Position and then Hang Himself.” (Compl. at 3.)

In any event, no basis for federal jurisdiction is alleged

in the complaint. Indeed, it appears that the court lacks subject

matter jurisdiction over this action. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S.

678, 682 (recognizing that a claim is subject to dismissal for want

Case 2:06-cv-01015-RRB-DAD Document 3 Filed 08/11/06 Page 2 of 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

1

 Further, even if subject matter jurisdiction lies, the only

named defendant, Judge Pro Tem Geddes, would appear to be entitled to

absolute judicial immunity with respect to plaintiff’s claim against

him. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 435

U.S. 349 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967); Meek v. County

of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965-68 (9th Cir. 1999); Partington v.

Gedan, 961 F.2d 852, 866-67 (9th Cir. 1992).

3

of jurisdiction where it is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” and

“so patently without merit”); Hagans v. Levine, 415 U.S. 528, 543

(stating that a claim may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where

it is “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions

of this Court or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to

involve a federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the District

Court”). See also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 (9th Cir.

1984)(“A paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer

federal subject matter jurisdiction and may be dismissed sua sponte

before service of process.”)(citations omitted).

Subject matter jurisdiction appears to be lacking also

because plaintiff’s complaint essentially seeks appellate review of a

state court Small Claims proceeding. As a general matter, a federal

district court does not have jurisdiction to review errors in state

court decisions. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460

U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415

(1923).1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is granted;

2. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within twenty

Case 2:06-cv-01015-RRB-DAD Document 3 Filed 08/11/06 Page 3 of 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

4

days of the date that this order is filed why this matter should not

be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(h)(3); and

3. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to timely

comply with the terms of this order will result in a recommendation

that this action be dismissed.

DATED: August 10, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\vigil1015.ifp.osc

Case 2:06-cv-01015-RRB-DAD Document 3 Filed 08/11/06 Page 4 of 4