Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04590/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04590-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Angela Ball
Defendant
Marilyn Ann Bartholomew
Plaintiff
Chad Finke
Defendant

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARILYN ANN BARTHOLOMEW,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHAD FINKE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-04590-CRB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Pro se plaintiff Marilyn Bartholomew has sued a variety of state-court officials, 

alleging a conspiracy to deprive her of a judicially-authorized order in her state-court 

appeal. See generally First Amend. Compl. (Dkt. 16). She alleges violations of the 

Fourteenth Amendment as well as claims under California fraud, malice, and negligence 

law. Id. Defendants are the Court Executive Officer of the Superior Court of California, 

Chad Finke, the Supervising Legal Research Attorney for Superior Court of California, 

Angela Ball, and twenty unnamed state court officials. Id. at ¶¶ 11-18. 

Defendants have now moved to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff’s claim is barred by 

the Eleventh Amendment, Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and that her claim lacks sufficient

specificity. Mot. at 1 (Dkt. 21).

The Courts holds that the suit is fully barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The 

Court thus GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

I. BACKGROUND

The Complaint alleges that the employees of the Superior Court of California,

County of Alameda, engaged in a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of judicially issued 

Case 3:18-cv-04590-CRB Document 35 Filed 01/23/19 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

rulings because administrative officials ruled on her state-court case. See generally First 

Amend. Compl. It further alleges that the presiding judge’s duties were delegated to Finke, 

and: (1) Finke and/or Ball, “and/or legal staff directed by Finke and/or Ball, controlled 

whether the Appeals Unit would issue any appellate minute order[,]” First Amend. Compl. 

¶ 164; (2) Ball controlled “what would be written into the content of the minute orders the 

Appeals Unit created[,]” id. at ¶ 161; (3) Ball and Finke controlled “whether any document 

filed in the appeal case would ever be listed in, or viewable in, the Register of Actions[,]” 

id. at ¶¶ 162, 166; (4) Finke had controlled Ball and her staff, so that Finke ultimately 

controlled “the content of the minute orders the Appeals Unit created[,]” id. at ¶ 165; and 

(5) Finke and Ball decided and controlled whether the Appellate Division would actually 

receive documents filed by Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 163. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and 

punitive damages, declaratory and equitable relief, and attorneys fees. Id. at Prayer for 

Relief.

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants offer three arguments that, they urge, are independent bases dismissal. 

See generally Mot. Because the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss on the basis of the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court does not reach the Defendants’ other two arguments.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars the entirety of Plaintiff’s suit, because under that 

doctrine the Court lacks jurisdiction. See Mot. at 5-6; Worldwide Church of God v. 

McNair, et al. 805 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1986) (district courts “may not exercise 

appellate jurisdiction over state courts.” (citing Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 

415-16 (1923))). Defendants urge that all of Plaintiff’s claims are “inextricably 

intertwined” with the state court’s decision, so this Court lacks jurisdiction. Mot. at 6 

(quoting District Court of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 

(1983). Plaintiff responds that the alleged “fraud committed by Defendants as court 

employees resulted in no decision for her appeal ever made by judges,” and thus is not a 

state court action.

Case 3:18-cv-04590-CRB Document 35 Filed 01/23/19 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:18-cv-04590-CRB Document 35 Filed 01/23/19 Page 3 of 3