Trueheart v. Arax ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMBER TRUEHEART, Case No. 1:23-cv-01710-NODJ-SAB 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 13 v. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM 14 JUDGE BRIAN ARAX, (ECF No. 1) 15 Defendant. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN TWENTY- 16 ONE DAYS 17 18 I. 19 INTRODUCTION 20 Plaintiff Amber Trueheart, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights 21 action on December 12, 2023. (ECF No. 1.) Based on review of the complaint, the Court issues 22 the following findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed. 23 II. 24 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 25 Notwithstanding any filing fee, the court shall dismiss a case if at any time the Court 26 determines that the complaint “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which 27 relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) 1 (section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners); 2 Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis 3 proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. United States, 70 4 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court has discretion to dismiss in forma pauperis 5 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998) 6 (affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim). The Court therefore exercises its 7 discretion to screen the plaintiff’s complaint in this action to determine if it “(i) is frivolous or 8 malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief 9 against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 10 In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same 11 pleading standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a 12 short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . .” Fed. R. 13 Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 14 elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 15 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 16 544, 555 (2007)). 17 In reviewing the pro se complaint, the Court is to liberally construe the pleadings and 18 accept as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 19 94 (2007). Although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, 20 a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[A] 21 complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . ‘stops 22 short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’ ” Id. (quoting 23 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Therefore, the complaint must contain sufficient factual content for 24 the court to draw the reasonable conclusion that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 25 alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 III. 2 ALLEGATIONS IN PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 3 Plaintiff alleges she and her deceased fiancé jointly invested in their home for ten years. 4 (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff maintains she has evidence by way of a witness declaration and a 5 handwritten will that confirms the home was to remain with Plaintiff following the death of her 6 fiancé. (Id.) In an ongoing probate matter in Fresno County Superior Court, Plaintiff alleges 7 Fresno County Superior Court Judge Brian Arax (“Judge Arax”) wants to deprive Plaintiff of the 8 property due to Plaintiff and her fiancé’s failure to register their relationship online in 2020. (Id.) 9 Plaintiff contends her rights under the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments to the United 10 States Constitution have been violated. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff’s requests that this Court to issue an 11 immediate cease and desist to Judge Arax ordering him from stripping Plaintiff of the right to her 12 home. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff also requests this Court issue an immediate order to non-party 13 unspecified attorneys at Baker Manock & Jenson to cease harassing Plaintiff, as they have 14 emailed her numerous times to remind her Judge Arax is going to deprive her of the property. 15 (Id.) Plaintiff claims mental and emotional distress, lost wages, and loss of enjoyment of 16 property. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. 17 IV. 18 DISCUSSION 19 A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 20 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning they may only hear specific 21 types of cases. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Lack of subject 22 matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time by any party or sua sponte by the court. See Csibi v. 23 Fustos, 670 F.2d 134, 136 n.3 (9th Cir. 1982). Probate matters are not within the jurisdiction of 24 the federal court. Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 308 (2006) (“Decisions of this Court have 25 recognized a ‘probate exception,’ kin to the domestic relations exception, to otherwise proper 26 federal jurisdiction”); Goncalves by & Through Goncalves v. Rady Children's Hosp. San Diego, 27 865 F.3d 1237, 1252 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[T]he probate exception prevents a federal court from 1 state probate court”). 2 Plaintiff’s complaint concerns an ongoing probate matter in Fresno County Superior 3 Court. Specifically, Plaintiff maintains that she has rights to property which appears to currently 4 be a part of her deceased fiancé’s estate. She alleges there are multiple documents that confirm 5 the property was to stay with her, presumably upon the death of her fiancée. Because Plaintiff 6 perceives Judge Arax is “inclined to deny” that she has any rights to the property, Plaintiff 7 requests that this Court award her $800,000.00 in damages and preclude Judge Arax from 8 depriving Plaintiff of her alleged rights to the property. Such allegations suggest that Plaintiff is 9 requesting that this Court dictate the disposal of property presumably in the custody of the state 10 probate court and administration of her deceased fiancé’s estate currently subject to an ongoing 11 probate matter. The Court lacks jurisdiction under the probate exception over Plaintiff’s claims. 12 Further, a plaintiff must state the basis of the court’s jurisdiction in the complaint. 13 “Subject-matter jurisdiction is created only by pleading a cause of action within the court's 14 original jurisdiction.” Harris v. Health & Hum. Servs., No. CIV S-11-3417 KJM, 2012 WL 15 761981, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2012) (citation omitted). Mere reference to constitutional 16 violations does not create subject-matter jurisdiction. Here, Plaintiff's attempt to create federal 17 subject matter jurisdiction by claiming that Judge Arax has violated her rights under the First, 18 Fourth, and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution fails. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Even when liberally 19 construing Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts supporting violations of any 20 rights afforded under the First, Fourth, or Ninth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court finds 21 Plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 22 B. Younger Abstention 23 Given Plaintiff’s complaint seeks to have this Court adjudicate an ongoing matter in 24 Fresno County Superior Court, the Court also finds abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 25 37 (1971) is appropriate.1 Younger abstention is required when: (1) state proceedings, judicial in 26 1 Based on the facts contained in the complaint at the time of the filing, it would appear Younger abstention would 27 apply rather than the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 612–13 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Because we are not asked to review the merits of a final state judgment, but rather to enjoin ongoing state 1 nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve important state interests; and (3) the state 2 proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional issue. Middlesex County 3 Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of the 4 Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994). Although Younger dealt with a state court 5 criminal prosecution, the doctrine of abstention also applies to state administrative proceedings. 6 Hare v. Simpson, No. CIV S-12-0136 JAM, 2012 WL 1552782, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 1, 2012). 7 Younger abstention further supports dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. State judicial 8 proceedings are pending in Fresno County Superior Court and Judge Arax is currently presiding 9 over the matter. Plaintiff’s requested relief requires that this Court interfere with the pending 10 probate matter in state court. The broad relief sought by Plaintiff—issue an order directing that 11 Judge Arax refrain from precluding Plaintiff in administration of the decedent’s estate— 12 implicates unwarranted federal involvement in an ongoing state probate matter. See ReadyLink 13 Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758-59 (9th Cir. 2014) (federal courts 14 are required to abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings where “the federal 15 action would have the practical effect of enjoining the state proceedings”). If Plaintiff seeks to 16 challenge the judicial rulings which she alleges Judge Arax is “inclined” and “wants” to make in 17 the ongoing probate matter, Plaintiff may later file an appeal with the California Court of 18 Appeal. Plaintiff cannot use this action by broadly alleging unsupported constitutional violations 19 as a vehicle for interfering in the ongoing probate matter. While Plaintiff failed to provide the 20 Court any factual basis for the alleged violations to her rights afforded under the First, Fourth, 21 and Ninth Amendments, the Court finds on the facts provided that Plaintiff will be afforded an 22 adequate opportunity to raise any constitutional issues resulting from deprivation of the property 23 in state appellate proceedings. Accordingly, the Court finds the Younger abstention doctrine bars 24 this Court from interfering with the ongoing probate matter in Fresno County Superior Court. 25 C. Improper Defendant 26 Plaintiff names Fresno County Superior Court Judge Brian Arax as the sole defendant in 27 this action. Judges are generally afforded absolute immunity from suit when functioning in their 1 “Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from 2 liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction.” Pierson v. Ray, 386 3 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967). “Judicial immunity applies ‘however erroneous the act may have been, 4 and however injurious in its consequences it may have proved to the plaintiff.’ ” Ashelman v. 5 Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985)). 6 Judicial immunity “is an immunity from suit, not just from the ultimate assessment of 7 damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). 8 Plaintiff requests that this Court interfere with Judge Arax’s judicial rulings in 9 administering a decedent's estate or disposing of property during an ongoing probate matter in 10 Fresno County Superior Court. It is well-established that Judge Arax is immune from liability 11 arising from his professional capacity in making such judicial rulings. Accordingly, it is 12 recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend because the legal 13 deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. 14 The Court also notes Plaintiff requests that this Court order unspecified attorneys at 15 Baker Manock & Jenson to cease emailing her to remind her Judge Arax is going to deprive her 16 of the property. However, Plaintiff does not name them as defendants in this action, nor does she 17 make a statement of a claim against them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). 18 Should Plaintiff wish to file a claim against a specific party, she must name them as a defendant, 19 include a statement of the grounds of the court’s jurisdiction over that defendant, and state a 20 cause of action. 21 D. Leave to Amend 22 “A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint, and some notice of 23 its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be 24 cured by amendment.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, the 25 Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the abstention doctrine applies, and the sole defendant is 26 entitled to absolute judicial immunity for the actions alleged in the complaint. Because it does 27 not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be cured by amending the 1 VI. 2 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 3 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs complaint be 4 | dismissed without leave to amend. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 6 | action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within twenty- 7 | one (21) days of service of these recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the 8 | findings and recommendations with the Court. Such a document should be captioned 9 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The District Judge will 10 | review the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 11 | 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 12 | result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 13 | (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. nf ee 16 | Dated: _February 26, 2024 _ □ 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28