Nwaigwe v. County of San Diego Child Support Services

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 MOSES NWAIGWE, Case No.: 3:20-cv-01356-WQH-RBB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, [15] Defendant. [16] HAYES, Judge: [17] The matter before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma [18] Pauperis. (ECF No. 2). [19] I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND [20] On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff Moses Nwaigwe filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in [21] Forma Pauperis (“Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP”). (ECF No. 2). [22] On July 17, 2020 Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant County of San Diego [23] Child Support Services. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff moves to set aside a judgment and rescind [24] his signature on a child support agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [25] 60(b) on the ground that his signature was induced by fraud and duress. [28] 1 II. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP (ECF NO. 2) 2 All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 3 United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 4 $400.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914 (a); CivLR 4.5. An action may proceed despite a party’s 5 failure to pay only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915 (a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To 7 proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114 , 116 8 (9th Cir. 1965). 9 Plaintiff states in his affidavit that he is “unable to pay the costs of these proceedings 10 . . . .” (ECF No. 2 at 1). Plaintiff states in his application to proceed in forma pauperis 11 that, during the past 12 months, he earned an average of $4,400.00 per month from his 12 employer. See id. at 1-2. Plaintiff states that he has $5.00 in a Wells Fargo checking 13 account. See id. at 2. Plaintiff states that his total monthly expenses are $3,897.00. See 14 id. at 4-5. After considering Plaintiff’s Motion and affidavit, the Court determines that 15 Plaintiff cannot afford to pay the filing fee in this case and is eligible to proceed in forma 16 pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a). The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Motion for 17 Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 18 III. INITIAL SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT 19 The determination of whether a party may proceed in forma pauperis does not 20 complete the inquiry. The court is also required to screen cases filed by parties proceeding 21 in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2) states that 22 (2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that-- [23] (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or 24 (B) the action or appeal-- (i) is frivolous or malicious; [25] (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or 26 (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. [1] 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). The standard used to evaluate whether a complaint states a claim 2 is a liberal one, particularly when the action has been filed pro se. See Estelle v. Gamble, [3] 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). However, even a “liberal interpretation . . . may not supply 4 elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of 5 Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) states that 6 “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of 7 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[A] 8 plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more 9 than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action 10 will not do . . . .” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (second alteration 11 in original) (citation omitted). 12 Plaintiff requests “this [C]ourt to set aside a judgment” and “resci[nd] [his] signature 13 on [a] child support agreement.” (ECF No. at 1 at 1-2) (emphasis omitted). Plaintiff asserts 14 that he “was not informed that his consent was a requirement for the court to have 15 jurisdiction to proceed and instead he was misinformed that he must sign [the] agreement 16 titled DF261277 or he would be held in default, he may be arrested and his driver[’]s 17 license would be suspended . . . .” Id. at 2 (emphasis omitted). Plaintiff contends that his 18 “signature was induced by fraud and duress . . . .” Id. at 1 (emphasis omitted). 19 “Rooker–Feldman is a powerful doctrine that prevents federal courts from second20 guessing state court decisions by barring the lower federal courts from hearing de facto 21 appeals from state-court judgments . . . .” Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th 22 Cir. 2003). “[U]nlike res judicata, the Rooker–Feldman doctrine is not limited to claims 23 that were actually decided by the state courts, but rather it precludes review of all state 24 court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those 25 challenges allege that the state court’s action was unconstitutional.” Id. at 901 . “Stated 26 plainly, Rooker–Feldman bars any suit that seeks to disrupt or undo a prior state-court 27 judgment, regardless of whether the state-court proceeding afforded the federal-court 28 plaintiff a full and fair opportunity to litigate her claims.” Id. This court lacks subject 1 || matter jurisdiction to void any of the decisions or judgments entered in the state court 2 || action. 3 Plaintiff has failed to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction because 4 ||no federal question of law has been presented to create federal question jurisdiction and 5 || Plaintiff has failed to make any showing that the Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant [6] 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . To the extent Plaintiff seeks to bring state law claims against 7 || Defendant, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction because no federal question 8 law has been presented. The Court concludes that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is 9 || DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 10 || See. e.g., Moore v. Leehy, No. 11cev2279 BTM (WVG), 2011 WL 4635031 , at *1-2 (S.D. 11 Oct. 6, 2011) (same). 12 IV. CONCLUSION 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma 14 || Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED 16 || without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff 17 file a Motion to File an Amended Complaint within sixty (60) says of the date of this 18 Order. If no motion is filed, the Clerk of the Court shall close this case. 19 || Dated: July 30, 2020 Nitta □□□ A a 20 Hon, William Q. Hayes 71 United States District Court