IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MICHEAL L. WARD, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

AMBER R. WORTHEN VASQUEZ, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

MCSHANE, Judge: 

Civ. No. 6:16-cv-00342-MC 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff, prose, brings this motion to proceed informa pauperis, ECF No. 2, in an action 

against various defendants alleging grievances that appear to be related to an adverse custody 

ruling in the Superior Court of Washington for King County. See Compl., ECF No. 1. 

On March 2, 2016, this Court issued an Opinion and Order, ECF No. 6, dismissing 

Plaintiffs Complaint with leave to amend. In that Order, the Court identified a number of 

discrepancies in Plaintiffs allegations and determined that the Complaint failed to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted. See id at 2. Plaintiff then filed his Amended Complaint, which 

he entitled "Void Ab Initio Judgment." ECF No. 8. 

Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(h)(3) provides: "If the court determines at any time that 

it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); 

see also Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick, 505 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974) ("It has 

long been held that a judge can dismiss sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction"). Moreover, this 

Court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under FRCP 12(b )( 6) for failure to state a claim upon 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:16-cv-00342-MC Document 9 Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 4
which relief can be granted. Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(citations omitted). Likewise, if a plaintiff proceeds informa pauperis, this Court is required to 

dismiss "the case at any time if the court determines that" the action or appeal is "frivolous or 

malicious" or "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

Upon review, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, ECF No. 8, is DISMISSED with prejudice 

in its entirety. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

"In civil rights cases where the plaintiff appears prose, [this Court] must construe the 

pleadings liberally and must afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt." Karim-Panahi v. L.A. 

Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). This Court must give a prose 

litigant "leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of 

the complaint could not be cured by amendment." Id. (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted). "Moreover, before dismissing a prose civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim, 

[this Court] must give the plaintiff a statement of the complaint's deficiencies." Id. 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff appears to broadly seek relief under the Due Process Clause, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, 

and 42 USC§ 1983, among other sections. See Compl. 3, ECF No. 1. To survive an assessment 

under FRCP 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a plaintiff must allege "enough facts to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

570 (2007). Such facts are presumed true and must constitute "more than a sheer possibility that 

a defendant acted unlawfully." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

2 OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:16-cv-00342-MC Document 9 Filed 03/18/16 Page 2 of 4
Upon review, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint appears to be an attempt at an end run 

around state court custody proceedings. Plaintiff claims state court proceedings which ostensibly 

resulted in revocation of custody of his child constitute kidnapping and fraud upon him. 

While I find Plaintiffs situation unfortunate, his challenge is barred by the RookerFeldman doctrine, which precludes lower federal courts from hearing claims that collaterally 

attack prior state court decisions. See Ignacio v. Judges of US. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit, 453 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2006); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 

460 U.S. 462, 482 & n.16 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). 

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal courts lack jurisdiction to exercise 

appellate review over state court judgments. See Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, NA., 525 F.3d 855, 

858-59 (9th Cir. 2008); see also D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482-86; Rooker 

v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 415-16. "The clearest case for dismissal based on the RookerFeldman doctrine occurs when 'a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous 

decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that decision ... "' 

Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609, 613 (9th Cir. 2007), quoting Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 

1148, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003). However, the doctrine is equally applicable to bar the federal courts 

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

judgment." Reusser, 525 F.3d at 859, quoting Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 

(9th Cir. 2004), citing Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003). An action 

brought in federal court constitutes such an appeal if "claims raised in the federal court action are 

'inextricably intertwined' with [a] state court's decision such that the adjudication of the federal 

claims would undercut the state ruling or require the district court to interpret the application of 

state laws or procedural rules." Id., quoting Bianchi, 334 F.3d at 898. In essence, the Rooker3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:16-cv-00342-MC Document 9 Filed 03/18/16 Page 3 of 4
Feldman doctrine provides that "a party losing in state court is barred from seeking what in 

substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court, based 

on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's federal rights." 

Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994) (citations omitted). 

Here, Plaintiff plainly seeks relief from a state court judgment regarding custody over his 

child. His current claims are "inextricably intertwined" with the complained-of decision of the 

Superior Court of Washington for King County. Because no amendment of the Amended 

Complaint could effectively cure this jurisdictional deficiency, Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed 

in its entirety. 

CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, ECF No. 8, is DISMISSED with 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 11_ day of March, 2016. 

4 - OPINION AND ORDER 

\~-- l 

Michael J. McShane 

United States District Judge 

Case 6:16-cv-00342-MC Document 9 Filed 03/18/16 Page 4 of 4