Opinion
No. 2:16-cv-2842 KJN P
12-09-2016
WILLIAM SOTO, Plaintiff, v. YOLO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Court records reflect that plaintiff has sustained three "strikes" under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g),and therefore must pay the court's filing fee in full before he may proceed in this civil rights action. See Soto v. Kolb, No. 09-1654 FCD CMK (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2009). In Kolb, plaintiff was informed that he could not simply pay the filing fee after being denied in forma pauperis status because he must pay the filing fee at the time he initiates the suit. Kolb (ECF No. 7 at 3.) Plaintiff has not alleged any facts which suggest that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
In Kolb, the assigned magistrate judge found that plaintiff had filed at least three prior cases that were dismissed for failure to state a claim. Id. (ECF No. 7 at 2), citing Soto v. California Department of Corrections, No. CIV S-06-1476-LKK- DAD, Soto v. California Department of Corrections, No. CIV S-07-1908-FCD-EFB, and Soto v. Jordan, No. CIV S-08-2687-GGH. On November 24, 2009, in Kolb, the district court adopted the findings in full, and dismissed the action without prejudice to plaintiff re-filing the action along with payment of the court's filing fee. Id. --------
Moreover, the instant complaint fails to state a cognizable civil rights claim. The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).
Here, plaintiff names the Yolo County Superior Court as the only defendant, sets forth no charging allegations or injury, and in his request for relief states simply, "case dismissed." (ECF No. 1 at 6.)
Because plaintiff included no specific factual allegations, the gravamen of his complaint is unclear. However, to the extent that plaintiff challenges an order issued by the Yolo County Superior Court, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. A federal district court does not have jurisdiction to review errors in state court decisions in civil cases. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923). "The district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction either to conduct a direct review of a state court judgment or to scrutinize the state court's application of various rules and procedures pertaining to the state case." Samuel v. Michaud, 980 F. Supp. 1381, 1411-12 (D. Idaho 1996), aff'd, 129 F.3d 127 (9th Cir. 1997). See also Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291-92 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding no subject matter jurisdiction over section 1983 claim seeking, inter alia, implicit reversal of state trial court action); MacKay v. Pfeil, 827 F.2d 540, 544-45 (9th Cir. 1987) (attacking state court judgment because substantive defense improper under Rooker-Feldman). That the federal district court action alleges the state court's action was unconstitutional does not change the rule. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486.
Absent additional factual allegations not present here, it does not appear that plaintiff can amend his complaint to state a cognizable civil rights claim against the Yolo County Superior Court. Moreover, in light of the order finding that plaintiff is barred under 28 § 1915(g), plaintiff may choose to voluntarily dismiss this action rather than incur the court's $400.00 filing fee, particularly where his complaint is likely to be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall complete the attached notice and show cause, within thirty days, why he should not be required to pay the court's filing fee before this action proceeds. In the alternative, plaintiff may opt to voluntarily dismiss this action. Dated: December 9, 2016
/s/_________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE soto2842.osc
NOTICE OF RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER
Plaintiff hereby submits the following in compliance with the court's order filed__________.
__________ Response &payment of court's filing fee ($400.00)
Or
__________ Plaintiff opts to voluntarily dismiss this action. DATED:
/s/_________
Plaintiff