ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS Dkt. Nos. 10 & 12
DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Judge.
Presently before the court are Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the court grants the Motions and adopts the following order.
Plaintiff, Darrell J. Moore, Sr., seeks a declaratory judgment that the California Court of Appeal Order declaring him a vexatious litigant is an "incorrect and wrongful application of the State Statute." (First Amended Complaint ("FAC") ¶ 59.) Plaintiff further seeks to "enjoin the State of California from denying [his] rights to due process, " and to "[reinstate] his appeals." (Id.) Plaintiff names the State of California, State of California Superior Court Judges, the State Appellate Court, the State of California Supreme Court, the State Chartered Agency the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles ("HACLA"), the Commissioners of the HACLA, and the State of California Judicial Commission as Defendants.
Plaintiff has previously filed multiple lawsuits against Defendants including his former employer, the HACLA. At the request of the HACLA, the California Court of Appeal issued an order declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant subject to the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") Section 391. (State's Request for Judicial Notice ("RJN"), Exh. A.) In the order, the California Court of Appeal stated, "in the preceding seven years, in this District alone, [Plaintiff] has prosecuted at least five appeals and writ petitions pro se which have been finally determined adversely to him." (Id. at 2). The appellate court denied Plaintiff's petition for rehearing. (State's RJN, Exh. B.) The California Supreme Court denied Plaintiff leave to file a petition for writ of mandate. (State's RJN, Exh. C.)
Plaintiff claims that the Court of Appeal illegally and wrongfully used at least three non-final judgment interim matters as litigations for purposes of declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. (FAC ¶¶ 21, 22.) Plaintiff further alleges that the HACLA fraudulently led the court to miscalculate the required number of litigations needed to declare him a vexatious litigant. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that the five cases that were used to determine that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant (B205489, B208276, B208560, B231379, and B333818) are "cases that were still pending, had not been fully or finally determined, or were case numbers for writs and or petitions born out of cases that ended in a final resolution in favor of [Plaintiff]." (FAC ¶¶ 13, 18-21.) Plaintiff claims that this miscalculation resulted in the violation of many constitutional and statutory rights. (FAC ¶¶ 5, 44, 47-48).
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Specifically, the Defendants seek to dismiss on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and (2) federal jurisdiction to review and correct state court decisions is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
II. Legal Standard
A. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
The district court must dismiss an action if the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland , 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir.1986). A complaint will be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where a plaintiff's claim is barred by sovereign immunity. See Porter ex rel. Porter v. Board of Trustees of Manhatten Beach Unified School Dist. , 123 F.Supp.2d 1187, 1194 (C.D.Cal.2000)(reversed on other grounds); Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil § 1350 (3d ed.1998).
B. Failure to State a Claim Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
The district court may grant dismissal when a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A well-pleaded complaint must provide "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544(2007). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must presume all well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint to be true. Syverson v. IBM Corp. , 472 F.3d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.2007). However, the court need not presume as true allegations of law that are conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors , 266 F.3d 979, 988(9th Cir. 2001).
A. Plaintiff's Claims against the State ...