Emert v. Ratekin

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 ROBERT ANTHONY EMERT, Case No.: 21-cv-01570-BTMAHG 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 14 COMMISSIONER PATTI C. PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING RATEKIN, 15 CASE WITH PREJUDICE Defendant. [17] On September 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint and a Motion to Proceed [18] In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). For the reasons discussed below, the IFP Motion is [19] granted and the Complaint is dismissed as barred under the Rooker-Feldman [20] doctrine. [22] DISCUSSION [23] I. Motion to Proceed IFP [24] Upon reviewing Plaintiff’s affidavit in support of his IFP Motion, the Court [25] finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently shown his inability to pay the filing fee required [26] to prosecute this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s IFP Motion is GRANTED. [1] 2 II. Failure to State a Claim 3 Although the Court will allow Plaintiff to proceed IFP, Plaintiff’s Complaint 4 fails to state a claim. The Court is under a continuing duty to dismiss an IFP case 5 whenever the Court determines that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief 6 may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii). “Threadbare recitals of elements 7 of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 8 See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, [9] 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 10 Plaintiff claims Ms. Ratekin, a California state Commissioner, violated his 11 Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. However, 12 Plaintiff’s factual allegations are scarce, conclusory, and lack any specificity. He 13 claims Commissioner Ratekin “has committed FRAUD upon the court” and that 14 she “has lost subject matter jurisdiction by acting in a manner inconsistent with due 15 process and entering void orders in violation of Rules of Court, State, State law, 16 public policy.” Even under the most liberal review, Plaintiff’s claim is woefully 17 insufficient. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-80 . [18] 19 III. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction 20 More fatally, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. A complaint must 21 state the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 8(a)(1). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars “state-court losers” from pursuing 23 actions in federal courts to void the decision of state courts. See Exxon Mobil Corp. 24 v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). 25 Here, Plaintiff requests the Court to “set aside” Commissioner Ratekin’s 26 orders. While Plaintiff casts his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , he is in essence 27 appealing a state court decision. However, the Court does not have jurisdiction to 28 consider appeals of state court decisions or set aside their orders. See Doe & 1 || Assocs. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026 , 1030 (9th Cir. 2000) (district 2 ||courts must decline jurisdiction when called upon to review state court decisions), 3 || see also Grant v. Unifund CCR, LLC, 577 Fed. Appx. 693, 696 (9th Cir. 2014) 4 ||(unpublished) (explaining the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents federal courts 5 exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over claims that require the court to act 6 ||as a “de facto court of appeals” over a state court judgment). Therefore, this Court 7 ||has no jurisdiction to hear the Complaint. See Black v. Haselton, 663 Fed. Appx. 8 576 (9th Cir. 2016) (unpublished). Rather, Plaintiff must appeal the state 9 court’s decision through the proper state court avenue. 10 Because Plaintiffs Complaint falls squarely within the Rooker-Feldman 11 ||doctrine, and this deficiency cannot be cured by amendment, the Complaint is 12 ||dismissed with prejudice. See Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042 , 1051 13 || (9th Cir. 2008). [14] 15 CONCLUSION 16 For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma 17 ||pauperis is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. [18] 19 IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: September 22, 2021 21 ang Te Meche Honorable Barry Ted Moskov 22 United States District Judge