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 

WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

David Novak, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Arizona, State of, 

Defendant.

No. CV-15-02234-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or 

Costs filed by pro se Plaintiff David Novak (Doc. 2). Having determined that Plaintiff does 

not have the means to pay the Court’s fees in this case, the Court would grant the 

Application. However, as set forth below, upon screening Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1, 

Compl.) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court finds that the Complaint fails to 

state a claim and dismisses it with prejudice. 

I. LEGAL STANDARDS 

A. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

For cases in which a party is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis—that is, the 

party lacks the means to pay court fees—Congress provided that a district court “shall 

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that the “allegation of poverty is 

untrue” or that the “action or appeal” is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on 

which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 

Case 2:15-cv-02234-JJT Document 7 Filed 12/10/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis

proceedings. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). “It is also clear that 

section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma 

pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.” Id. at 1127. “The standard for determining 

whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for 

failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). 

B. Sufficiency of a Claim 

A complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint must contain “sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 570 (2007)). A dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim can be based 

on either (1) the lack of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts to support a 

cognizable legal claim. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 

1990). The Court is to construe a pro se plaintiff’s complaint “liberally” and afford the 

plaintiff “the benefit of any doubt.” Watison, 668 F.3d at 1112 (citation omitted). 

II. ANALYSIS 

 In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, in 2013, Defendant State of Arizona 

fabricated criminal charges against him, improperly accepted his guilty plea, and 

improperly placed him on house arrest and ordered him to pay restitution. Plaintiff makes 

claims under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, seeking money 

damages in the form of $1.5 million and injunctive relief in the form of expungement of his 

criminal conviction. The Court assumes that Plaintiff attempts to bring a claim under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, which provides for a private right of action against a state actor for a 

constitutional violation. See Watison, 668 F.3d at 1112.

 The Court first notes that the doctrine of state sovereign immunity precludes 

Plaintiff from bringing a claim for money damages against the State of Arizona under 42 

Case 2:15-cv-02234-JJT Document 7 Filed 12/10/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

27 

28 

U.S.C. § 1983. Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979); Holley v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 

599 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010). For that reason, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s 

claims for money damages against the State of Arizona with prejudice. 

 With regard to Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief in the form of expungement, 

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars Plaintiff’s claims in this Court. The Rooker-Feldman

doctrine derives from two United States Supreme Court decisions, Rooker v. Fidelity 

Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 

(1983). First in Rooker and later in Feldman, the Supreme Court held that federal district 

courts cannot review state court decisions in an appellate capacity. The Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals has held that Rooker-Feldman “prevents federal courts from secondguessing state court decisions by barring the lower federal courts from hearing de facto

appeals from state-court judgments.” Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 

2003). “It is a forbidden de facto appeal under Rooker-Feldman when the plaintiff in 

federal district court complains of a legal wrong allegedly committed by the state court 

and seeks relief from the judgment of that court.” Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163 (9th 

Cir. 2004). Here, because Plaintiff asks this Court to conclude that the state court erred in 

taking his guilty plea and convicting him, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine instructs that this 

Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s claim. The Court must therefore 

dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief against the State of Arizona with prejudice. 

If a defective complaint can be cured, the plaintiff is entitled to amend the complaint 

before the action is dismissed. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. In this instance, it does not 

appear that Plaintiff’s claims against the State of Arizona in this Court can be cured by 

amendment. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed 

with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 

// 

// 

// 

Case 2:15-cv-02234-JJT Document 7 Filed 12/10/15 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District 

Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) is denied as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close this case. 

 Dated this 10th day of December, 2015. 

 

 Honorable John J. Tuchi 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-02234-JJT Document 7 Filed 12/10/15 Page 4 of 4