Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02139/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02139-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Diana Levy
Plaintiff
State of California
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

DIANA LEVY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 07-02139 JSW

ORDER DENYING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND DISMISSING

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

On April 17, 2007, Plaintiff Diana Levy filed a complaint and an application to proceed

in forma pauperis. Courts must deny in forma pauperis applications under certain

circumstances, including when the underlying complaint sought to be filed is frivolous or when

it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

In contravention of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), Plaintiff failed to file a

pleading setting forth the grounds upon which this Court has jurisdiction, “a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, . . . and a demand for

judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” Rather, Plaintiff’s complaint is disjointed to the

point of being incoherent and unintelligible. It is thus unclear to the Court the legal theories on

which Plaintiff seeks relief, what relief she is, in fact, seeking, or the underlying factual basis

for the suit. 

Furthermore, federal courts are under a duty to raise and decide issues of subject matter

jurisdiction sua sponte at any time it appears subject matter jurisdiction may be lacking. Fed.

R. 

Case 3:07-cv-02139-JSW Document 6 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Civ. P. 12; Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). If the Court

determines that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court must dismiss the case. Id.; Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). California superior courts are courts of general, unlimited jurisdiction and

can render enforceable judgments in practically any type of case. However, federal courts have

limited jurisdiction. Federal courts can only adjudicate cases which the Constitution or

Congress authorize them to adjudicate: those cases involving diversity of citizenship (where

the parties are from diverse states), or a federal question, or those cases to which the United

States 

is a party. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375

(1994). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil cases and the burden of

establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. at 377. 

In addition, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review state court judgments. The RookerFeldman doctrine provides that district courts lack jurisdiction to review the final

determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings. See, e.g., Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287,

291 (9th Cir. 1995); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923); District of

Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87 (1983). “The purpose of the

doctrine is to protect state judgments from collateral federal attack. Because district courts lack

power to hear direct appeals from state court decisions, they must decline jurisdiction whenever

they are ‘in essence called upon to review the state court decision.’” Doe & Associates Law

Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482

n.16). Where “the district court must hold that the state court was wrong in order to find in

favor of the plaintiff, the issues presented are inextricably intertwined.” Id. (citations omitted). 

In such a case, the district court must not exercise jurisdiction to review the ruling of a state

court.

To the extent the Court can make sense of the current submission, Plaintiff’s complaint

seeks, in effect, a review of some state court action. Dismissal is appropriate where the claims

are inextricably intertwined with the state court proceedings regarding state court litigation.

Case 3:07-cv-02139-JSW Document 6 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 4
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

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is HEREBY

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this action, she must file an amended complaint setting

forth a cognizable legal claim and some factual basis to support a claim with federal jurisdiction

by June 1, 2007. Plaintiff may file a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis upon

filing an amended complaint. Failure to file timely an amended complaint shall result in

dismissal of this action without prejudice. The Court advises Plaintiff that a Handbook for Pro

Se Litigants, which contains helpful information about proceeding without an attorney, is

available through the Court’s website or in the Clerk’s office. 

In light of this Order, the date for the Case Management Conference, previously set for

July 27, 2007 at 1:30 p.m., is HEREBY VACATED and will be reset by the Court at a later

date, if necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02139-JSW Document 6 Filed 05/10/07 Page 3 of 4
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIANA LEVY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al,

Defendant. 

Case Number: CV07-02139 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 10, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Diana Levy

756 Potomac

Santa Rosa, CA 95407

Dated: May 10, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-02139-JSW Document 6 Filed 05/10/07 Page 4 of 4