(PS) Jinks-Matthews v. County of Contra Costa Child Support ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OLUBUKANLA JINKS MATTHEWS, No. 2:19-cv-572-TLN-EFB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA CHILD SUPPORT; D CLEARY; MELINDA R. 15 SELF; GILBERT BOYD TARIN; and ANITA SANTOS; S L SOTO, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff, proceeding in propria persona, filed this action against the County of Contra 19 Costa’s Department of Child Support Services (“CSS”) and four individual defendants who 20 appear to be CSS employees. ECF No. 1 at 1, 8. Shortly after the complaint was filed, plaintiff 21 was ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter 22 jurisdiction and improper venue.1 ECF No. 3. 23 24 1 That order observed that plaintiff’s sole cause of action is a state law trespass claim arising out of events that occurred in the County of Alameda. The complaint also indicates that 25 all defendants (as well as plaintiff) reside in the County of Contra Costa, which—like the County 26 of Alameda, is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Northern District of California. Plaintiff was notified that should he demonstrate a basis for subject matter jurisdiction but fail to 27 show that venue is proper in this district, the action may be transferred to the Northern District of California instead of being dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). As explained 28 herein, plaintiff has not demonstrated a basis for jurisdiction. 1 In response, plaintiff filed two documents. The first is styled as “Foreign Affidavit and 2 Claim: Tresspass [forgery]” and the second as “Foreign Affidavit and Judicial Notice.” ECF Nos. 3 4 & 5. Neither filing establishes subject matter jurisdiction. Rather, they demonstrate the 4 opposite. Plaintiff claims that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by stealing $200 5 from his bank account each month since 2013. ECF No. 4 at 2; ECF No. 5 at 1. He requests that 6 this court stop an unspecified fraud committed by the California Superior Court. ECF No. 5. 7 Significantly, he also submitted a 2013 order from the Contra Costa County Superior Court 8 requiring him to make monthly child support payments in the amount of $200. Thus, it appears 9 from plaintiff’s filings that he seeks to contest an order for child support payments. 10 Plaintiff’s attempt to challenge a state court order requiring him to pay child support is 11 barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Under that doctrine, a federal district court does not 12 have subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a judgment of a state court. Exxon Mobil 13 Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283-84 (2005); see also Dist. of Columbia Court 14 of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 15 (1923). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars jurisdiction in federal district court if the exact claims 16 raised in a state court case are raised in the subsequent federal case, or if the constitutional claims 17 presented to the district court are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s denial of relief. 18 Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483 19 n. 16). Rooker-Feldman thus bars federal adjudication of any suit where a plaintiff alleges an 20 injury based on a state court judgment or directly appeals a state court’s decision. Id. at 900 n. 4. 21 “That the federal district court action alleges the state court’s action was unconstitutional does not 22 change the rule.” Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486. Because plaintiff’s alleged injury arises out of a 23 state court order, this court lacks jurisdiction over his claim. 24 For the above reasons the plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. Further, the 25 jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by amendment. Therefore, the dismissal should be without 26 leave to amend. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (while the court 27 ordinarily would permit a pro se plaintiff to amend, leave to amend should not be granted where it 28 appears amendment would be futile). wOAOe 2 POOP RINC ED POO Vee MV VI 1 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’ s complaint be dismissed 2 || without leave to amend, and the Clerk be directed to close the case. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 5 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 8 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner □□□ 9 | Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 | DATED: September 23, 2020. tid, PDEA EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28