(PS) Young v. Burlingham ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, No. 2:21-cv-01660 KJM AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STEVEN RICHARD BURLINGHAM, et 15 al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 On September 14, 2021, plaintiff filed this action in pro se and paid the filing fee. ECF 19 No. 1. The case was accordingly referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 The undersigned has reviewed the complaint and finds that this court lacks subject matter 21 jurisdiction, and that this action accordingly must be dismissed with prejudice. On September 17, 22 2021, the undersigned issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed with 23 prejudice, cautioning plaintiff that failure to respond would result in a recommendation of such 24 dismissal. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff did not respond. 25 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 26 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, (1994). In 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332(a), “Congress granted federal 27 courts jurisdiction over two general types of cases: cases that “aris[e] under” federal law, § 1331, 28 and cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000 and there is diversity of 1 citizenship among the parties, § 1332(a). These jurisdictional grants are known as “federal- 2 question jurisdiction” and “diversity jurisdiction,” respectively. Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. 3 Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1746 (2019), reh’g denied, No. 17-1471, 2019 WL 3538074 (U.S. Aug. 4 5, 2019). Absence of subject matter jurisdiction requires a federal court to dismiss a case. See 5 Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) (recognizing that “Article III 6 generally requires a federal court to satisfy itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter before 7 it considers the merits of a case”). 8 The complaint before the court alleges federal question jurisdiction, based on the 9 following: “Fraud Upon the Court as set forth in Cox v. Burke 706 So.2d 43 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 10 1998) (FRCP 60(b) The Catch-all permits relief from a Judgment for any reason that justifies 11 relief.” ECF No. 1 at 5. This language does not demonstrate the existence of federal question 12 jurisdiction. The case cited, Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998), is a 13 Florida state court case that has no bearing on federal jurisdiction. Indeed, the Cox decision does 14 not reference federal jurisdiction at all. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) likewise does not 15 create jurisdiction; it provides for relief from a federal court judgment in certain circumstances. 16 A case “arises under” federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or 17 “where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of 18 federal law.” Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002) 19 (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983)). 20 “[T]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded 21 complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 22 presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Id. at 1089 (quoting Rivet v. 23 Regions Bank, 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998)). Plaintiff’s complaint does not clearly invoke any 24 federal law or constitutional right. See ECF No. 1. 25 The content of plaintiff’s 101-page complaint, though difficult to decipher, appears to 26 appeal a state court judgment or sue attorneys for defrauding plaintiff’s mother in a state court 27 case. See ECF No. 1 at 11-17. State court judgments cannot be appealed or disputed in federal 28 court, see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (Rooker- 1 | Feldman doctrine precludes federal courts from entertaining challenges to state court judgments), 2 || and professional malpractice and fraud are state law matters. 3 Because the undersigned finds this court does not have jurisdiction to hear this case, and 4 || because plaintiff has not demonstrated otherwise by responding to the previously issued order to 5 || show cause, it is hereby recommended that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack 6 || of jurisdiction. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 9 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, parties may file written objections 10 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a document 11 | should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure 12 || to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 13 | order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 14 | 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 || DATED: October 14, 2021 A/ 16 ALLISONCLAIRE. 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28