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

 Defendants’ other arguments appear to be well-taken. However, the Rooker-Feldman

argument is dispositive.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIM BERRY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2580 LKK KJM PS 

vs.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Defendants’ motion to dismiss came on regularly for hearing on February 23,

2005. Plaintiff appeared in propria persona. Susan Oie appeared for defendants. Upon review

of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff and counsel,

and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 

In this action, plaintiff seeks a declaration that California Family Code section 271

is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to plaintiff. The complaint also seeks equitable

relief enjoining the California State Judiciary from sanctioning appeals under section 271. 

Defendants contend, among other arguments, that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.1

Case 2:04-cv-02580-LKK -KJM Document 14 Filed 05/04/05 Page 1 of 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

2

 Defendants request the court take judicial notice of the two unpublished appellate

decisions pertaining to plaintiff’s state court action. That request is granted.

2

A federal district court does not have jurisdiction to review errors in state court

decisions in civil cases, with the exception of habeas corpus petitions. 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). “The district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction either to conduct a direct review

of a state court judgment or to scrutinize the state court's application of various rules and

procedures pertaining to the state case.” Samuel v. Michaud, 980 F. Supp. 1381, 1411-12 (D.

Idaho 1996), aff’d, 129 F.3d 127 (9th Cir. 1997). See also Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291-92

(9th Cir.1995) (finding no subject matter jurisdiction over section 1983 claim seeking, inter alia,

implicit reversal of state trial court action); MacKay v. Pfeil, 827 F.2d 540, 544-45 (9th Cir.

1987) (attacking state court judgment because substantive defense improper under RookerFeldman). That the federal district court action alleges the state court’s action was

unconstitutional does not change the rule. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486. Moreover, claims raised in

federal district court need not have been argued in the state judicial proceedings to be barred by

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Id. at 483-84 & n.16. If federal claims are “inextricably

intertwined” with a state court judgment, the federal court may not hear them. Id. “[T]he federal

claim is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state court judgment if the federal claim succeeds

only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it.” Pennzoil Co. v.

Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 25 (1987) (Marshall, J., concurring). In sum, “a state court’s

application of its rules and procedures is unreviewable by a federal district court. The federal

district court only has jurisdiction to hear general challenges to state rules or claims that are

based on the investigation of a new case arising upon new facts.” Samuel, 980 F. Supp. at 1412-

13. 

The instant action arises out of a civil action filed by plaintiff in state court

following a marital settlement agreement.2 The state court action was against plaintiff’s former

Case 2:04-cv-02580-LKK -KJM Document 14 Filed 05/04/05 Page 2 of 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

3

wife and her counsel for abuse of process. In that action, sanctions were awarded against

plaintiff under Family Code section 271. Plaintiff raised the same constitutional challenges he

raises in the instant federal action on appeal in state court. Stripped to its essence, this action is

one for federal district court review of state court proceedings. The court finds the instant action

amounts to an attempt to litigate in federal district court matters that are inextricably intertwined

with state court decisions. 

Accordingly, the court will recommend this action be dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted; and

2. This action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 4, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

berry.57 

Case 2:04-cv-02580-LKK -KJM Document 14 Filed 05/04/05 Page 3 of 3