(PC) Vrh v. Bergman ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON VRH, Case No. 1:22-cv-00727-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. (ECF No. 12) 14 BERGMAN, et al., ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 15 Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 17 JURISDICTION 18 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 19 20 I. Introduction 21 Plaintiff Aaron Vrh (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 22 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 23 In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the injuries at issue in this case occurred in 2014 24 and 2015. (ECF No. 1.) This action was filed on June 13, 2022. (Id.) Pursuant to the applicable 25 statute of limitations, Plaintiff was required to file his action by 2019. Accordingly, on August 26 18, 2022, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause, within thirty days, why this 27 action should not be dismissed because Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations. 28 (ECF No. 12.) 1 II. Plaintiff’s Response to Order to Show Cause 2 On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause. (ECF No. 3 13.) In his response, Plaintiff states that he filed Case No. 2022736 in Stanislaus County Superior 4 Court on November 28, 2016, prior to the applicable statute of limitations.1 Plaintiff states that 5 Case No. 2022736 raised the same causes of action as those presented in this action. (Id. at 1.) 6 Plaintiff contends that Case No. 2022736 was wrongfully dismissed by Judge Stacy P. Speiller on 7 January 11, 2022, and Plaintiff is “asking this court to provide Appellate Review of that dismissal 8 and allow the case to be heard on its merits in this court.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff contends that his 9 request should not be time barred because this case was filed within six months of Judge 10 Speiller’s dismissal. Plaintiff alleges that he was not provided documentation of the dismissal, 11 and to the best of his memory, he was verbally told over the phone that California Forensic 12 Medical Group (CFMG) and its employees were “prison officials immune from civil litigation” 13 and the case was time barred because the trial had not begun within 5 years of filing. (Id.) 14 Plaintiff argues that equitable tolling should apply, or that it should make no difference if this 15 Court finds Case No. 2022736 was wrongfully dismissed. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff contends that this 16 case should not be dismissed pursuant to the statute of limitations, should be allowed to proceed 17 in this court, and the state court’s dismissal should be overturned. (Id. at 4.) 18 III. Legal Standards 19 Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the district court sua sponte. Ruhrgas 20 AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). Indeed, “courts have an independent 21 obligation to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a 22 challenge from any party.” Id.; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss the 23 action if subject matter jurisdiction is lacking). 24 The Rooker–Feldman doctrine generally bars federal district courts “from exercising 25 subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment.” 26 1 The Court takes judicial notice of Vrh, Aaron v. Stanislaus Cty. Jail, Case No. 2022736, Stanislaus 27 County Superior Court. The court may take judicial notice of state court records. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007); Kasey v. Molybdenum Corp. of Amer., 336 F.2d 560, 28 563 (9th Cir. 1964). 1 Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004); see District of Columbia Court of 2 Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). The 3 Supreme Court emphasized in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. that the 4 Rooker–Feldman doctrine “is confined to cases of the kind from which the doctrine acquired its 5 name: cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments 6 rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and 7 rejection of those judgments. Rooker–Feldman does not otherwise override or supplant 8 preclusion doctrine or augment the circumscribed doctrines that allow federal courts to stay or 9 dismiss proceedings in deference to state-court actions.” 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). The Ninth 10 Circuit further clarified that Rooker–Feldman applies only when a federal plaintiff both asserts as 11 her injury legal error or errors by the state court and seeks as her remedy relief from the state 12 court judgment. Kougasian, 359 F.3d at 1140. 13 IV. Discussion 14 Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s order to show cause, despite addressing whether this 15 action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, raises a separate question regarding 16 whether this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.2 17 As noted above, Plaintiff requests “Appellate Review” of the dismissal of Case No. 18 2022736, permission for this case to be heard on its merits in this court, and that the dismissal be 19 overturned. Although the complaint requests only damages and injunctive relief in the form of 20 implementation of the “Ralf act,” (ECF No. 1, p. 6), in the list of Plaintiff’s prior lawsuits 21 Plaintiff includes Case No. 2022736 and states that “[i]t was erroneously dismissed” and that he 22 is “appealing to this court,” (id. at 2). 23 Based on Plaintiff’s characterization of this suit and the relief requested in his response to 24 the Court’s order to show cause, the Court finds that Plaintiff is asserting that he suffered a legal 25 error when his state court case was dismissed and that he seeks relief from the state court 26 2 Plaintiff has not provided, and the Court was unable to locate, documentation regarding the 27 basis for the state court’s dismissal of Case No. 2022736. Therefore, at this time the Court expresses no opinion as to the applicability of claim preclusion or res judicata to the instant 28 action. 1 judgment in this suit. Despite his request for other forms of relief in the complaint, Plaintiff 2 acknowledges that in order for this action to be heard on the merits, this Court would be 3 providing an appellate review of the dismissal of Case No. 2022736. The Rooker-Feldman 4 doctrine prevents this Court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over what Plaintiff has 5 repeatedly characterized as an appeal from a state court judgment. Kougasian, 359 F.3d at 1139. 6 Accordingly, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 7 In light of this finding, the Court further finds it unnecessary to address Plaintiff’s 8 arguments regarding equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for this action. 9 V. Order and Recommendation 10 Accordingly, the order to show cause issued on August 18, 2022, (ECF No. 12), is 11 HEREBY DISCHARGED; and the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly 12 assign a District Judge to this action. 13 Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with 14 prejudice, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 15 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 17 (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 18 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 19 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 20 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 21 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 22 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: October 6, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28