Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120411_0000619.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-05-27 06:34:28
Document Index: 178166114

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1914', '§ 1983', '§ 1914', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1257']

| Shawn James Allen Woodall, Inmate Booking No. 12512537 v. Jerry Sanders; Does 1-50; County of San
Shawn James Allen Woodall, Inmate Booking No. 12512537 v. Jerry Sanders; Does 1-50; County of San
SHAWN JAMES ALLEN WOODALL, INMATE BOOKING NO. 12512537, PLAINTIFF,v.JERRY SANDERS; DOES 1-50; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; SAN DIEGO SHERIFF'S DEP'T; WILLIAM GORE; AND SANFORD TOYEN, DEFENDANTS.
1) DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS BARRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) [ECF No. 2]
2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION FOR FAILING TO PAY CIVIL FILING FEE REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a);
3) DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXCESS PAGES AS MOOT
Shawn James Allen Woodall ("Plaintiff"), currently housed at the San Diego County Central Jail, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No. 2]. In addition, Plaintiff has filed a "Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages" [ECF No. 3] and "Notice of Grave Danger or Death Without Emergency and Immediate Action" [ECF No. 4].
As an initial matter, the Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint and has ascertained that there is no "plausible allegation" to suggest Plaintiff "faced 'imminent danger of serious physical injury' at the time of filing." Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). In addition while Plaintiff has filed a "Notice of Grave Danger or Death," Plaintiff admits that the relief he seeks in this action is identical to an action brought by Plaintiff in the California Superior Court. (See Compl. at 12.) Plaintiff admits that his request for relief in the Superior Court action was denied by the Superior Court Judge. (Id.)
If this Court were to grant the relief requested by Plaintiff in this case it would violate the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that "'a losing party 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.'" Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994)), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 868 (1999); see District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 & 486 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). Review of state court decisions may only be conducted in the United States Supreme Court. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 476 & 486; Rooker, 263 U.S. at 416; see 28 U.S.C. § 1257. The Rooker-Feldman jurisdictional bar applies even if the complaint raises federal constitutional issues. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483 n.16 & 486; Henrichs v. Valley View Development, 474 F.3d 609, 613 (9th Cir. 2007).
A court "'may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.'" Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, this Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff has had at least three ...