IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

LLOYD TRACKWELL, 

Plaintiff, No 3:14-cv-01701-HU

v.

VICTORIA MOFFET,

Defendant. ORDER

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Hubel issued a Findings and Recommendation [7] on December 15, 

2014, in which he recommends that this Court grant Plaintiff Lloyd Trackwell’s application to 

proceed in forma pauperis, solely for the purposes of screening his Complaint, and dismiss this 

action without prejudice. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation. 

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation, 

the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's 

1 – ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-01701-SB Document 13 Filed 02/05/15 Page 1 of 3
report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

I have carefully considered Plaintiff’s objections and conclude there is no basis to modify 

the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de 

novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation. I provide 

additional explanation to Plaintiff below. 

Plaintiff seeks to bring a malpractice suit against his former attorney, Victoria Moffet, 

who represented him in state court proceedings.0 F

1 Plaintiff does not object to Magistrate Judge 

Hubel’s finding that the Oregon Supreme Court has clearly foreclosed someone like Plaintiff 

from filing a malpractice suit until he has “been exonerated of the criminal offense through 

reversal on direct appeal, through post-conviction relief proceedings, or otherwise.” Stevens v. 

Bispham, 316 Or. 221, 238-39 (1993). Instead, Plaintiff requests that this Court nevertheless 

allow his case to proceed but stay it until Plaintiff’s post-conviction remedies have been 

exhausted, in order for Plaintiff to challenge the constitutionality of the Stevens decision. 

However, as Judge Hubel explains, a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review the 

constitutionality of final decisions of state courts. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. 

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); and Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). Therefore, 

even if Plaintiff’s case were stayed until his post-conviction remedies are exhausted, this Court 

would be required to dismiss a challenge to the constitutionality of Stevens for lack of 

jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice in order to allow him to pursue 

his claim against Defendant if his criminal convictions are ultimately overturned.

///

1 Plaintiff was convicted by a jury in Wallowa County Circuit Court of two counts of 

misdemeanor stalking and two counts of contempt of court. See Compl. ¶¶ 6-10.

2 – ORDER

 

Case 3:14-cv-01701-SB Document 13 Filed 02/05/15 Page 2 of 3
CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Hubel’s Findings & Recommendation [7], and 

therefore, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [2] is granted, but his Complaint 

[1] is dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of , 2015.

 

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ

United States District Judge

3 – ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-01701-SB Document 13 Filed 02/05/15 Page 3 of 3