Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03206/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03206-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leland Davis III
Defendant
Eric Richard Eleson
Plaintiff
Kamala Harris
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC RICHARD ELESON, 

Plaintiff, 

 v.

JUDGE LELAND DAVIS III;

KAMALA HARRIS,

Defendants.

/

No. C 15-3206 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

This is a pro se civil rights complaint filed by a California prisoner proceeding pro se

under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate

order. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is DISMISSED.

DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Case 3:15-cv-03206-WHA Document 4 Filed 07/31/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

at 1974. Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff alleges that he filed a habeas petition in San Mateo County Superior Court in

October 2014, and then in January 2015 filed a request for judicial notice of provisions of the

California constitution. Thereafter, he additional documents challenging state court rules and a

request for ruling. All of these requests were denied by defendant, Superior Court Judge Leland

Davis III. In this civil rights case, he seeks orders reversing and vacating the superior court’s

order, money damages for what he asserts is an incorrect ruling, discipline of the judge, and an

investigation into the California Attorney General’s Office. 

The federal district courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to review state court

decisions, and state court litigants may therefore only obtain federal review by filing a petition

for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. District of Columbia Court of

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413,

416 (1923). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine essentially bars federal district courts “from

exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court

judgment,” which is what Plaintiff seeks here. See Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136,

1139 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff’s request for money damages is, moreover, barred by the

doctrine of judicial immunity because Davis’s actions were performed in his judicial capacity. 

See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55 (1967). The proper avenue for plaintiff to pursue

review of the superior court’s decisions is in the state appellate courts. Lastly, there is no

authority for the federal court to discipline a superior court judge.

Case 3:15-cv-03206-WHA Document 4 Filed 07/31/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable

claim for relief. 

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July , 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

31

Case 3:15-cv-03206-WHA Document 4 Filed 07/31/15 Page 3 of 3