Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06606/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06606-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City and County of San Francisco
Defendant
Suzanne Gamble
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

SUZANNE GAMBLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-06606-TSH 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff Suzanne Gamble filed a Notice of Removal and an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the 

application but finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. As not all parties 

have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c), the Court requests this case be reassigned to a District Judge, with the recommendation 

that this case be remanded to the San Francisco Superior Court.

II. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION

A district court may authorize the start of a civil action in forma pauperis if the court is 

satisfied the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filling fees required to pursue the lawsuit. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Gamble submitted the required documentation demonstrating an inability 

to pay the costs of this action, and it is evident from the application that her assets and income are 

insufficient to enable payment of the fees. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Gamble’s

application. 

Case 4:19-cv-06606-PJH Document 7 Filed 11/06/19 Page 1 of 3
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

III. SUA SPONTE SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)

A. Legal Standard

The in forma pauperis statute provides that the Court must dismiss a complaint if it is 

frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a 

defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). To make this determination, 

courts assess whether there is a factual and legal basis for the asserted wrong, “however inartfully 

pleaded.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984) (quotation omitted). In 

cases removed from state court, removal statutes are to be strictly construed, and any doubts are to 

be resolved in favor of state court jurisdiction and remand. Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th 

Cir. 1992). The party seeking removal bears the burden of proving its propriety. Duncan v. 

Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 683–85 

(9th Cir. 2006). 

B. Analysis

Having reviewed the state court docket,

1

the undersigned finds the Court lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction over her claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars federal district 

courts from hearing appeals or de facto appeals from state-court judgments. See Cooper v. Ramos, 

704 F.3d 772, 777 (9th Cir. 2012). Although Gamble attempted to remove this case from San 

Francisco Superior Court, that court has already granted Defendant City and County of San 

Francisco’s motion for summary judgment and directed that judgment be entered in its favor. See

Gamble v. City and County of San Francisco, CGC-17-559384.2 As such, the Court construes 

Gamble’s removal as an attempt to appeal that judgment. See Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 

F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) (an action is a de facto appeal when the claimed legal injuries “arise 

from the state court’s purportedly erroneous judgment.”). Thus, any action by this Court could

have the effect of reversing the outcome of the superior court proceedings. See Doe v. Mann, 415 

 

1 At the time of removal, Gamble did not file a copy of her complaint. After the Court ordered her 

to file the complaint filed in state court, ECF No. 5, Gamble instead filed a new complaint, ECF 

No. 6. That complaint is not considered here.

2 The Court takes judicial notice of the superior court’s docket. See Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. 

Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006)

Case 4:19-cv-06606-PJH Document 7 Filed 11/06/19 Page 2 of 3
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

F.3d 1038, 1041-42 (9th Cir. 2005); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163 (9th Cir. 2003). That 

Gamble may seek to bring additional claims for relief based on federal constitutional theories 

makes no difference. See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983); Bianchi v. 

Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483, 485) (the district 

court lacks jurisdiction over claims “‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state court’s decision such 

that the adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling.”). Accordingly, the 

Court is without jurisdiction over this action and the matter must be remanded to the state court. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court 

lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded”).

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis above, the Court GRANTS the Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis. As not all parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the Clerk of Court shall REASSIGN this case to a District Judge, 

with the recommendation that the matter be REMANDED to the San Francisco Superior Court.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, any party may serve and file objections to 

this Report and Recommendation within 14 days after being served. Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.

Dated: November 6, 2019

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:19-cv-06606-PJH Document 7 Filed 11/06/19 Page 3 of 3