United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO 28
U.S.C. § 1915A FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH
RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED
F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma
pauperis in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
After a dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, he has
filed an amended complaint, a motion to amend,  a request for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis,  a “motion for oral
argument for relief for a reversal of conviction/sentencing,
” and a “motion to object courts judgment and
notice to appeal ruling request for writ of coram nobis to be
issued.” The amended complaint is now before the court
courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or
dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, ” or
“seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).
second amended complaint fails to state a claim. The named
defendants include California State Prison, Warden Fox,
Former Governor Schwarzenegger, State Controller John Chiang,
and Governor Brown. Plaintiff alleges that seventeen years
ago a state court “wrongfully” imposed an order
of restitution. ECF No. 19 at 1-3. He claims the defendants
have “wrongfully accused” him of not paying the
fines even though he does “not have the ability or
resources to pay any restitution fine.” Id. at
4, 5. He requests that this court “end the conviction
and enforcement of the judgment.” Id. at 5.
the original complaint, the second amended complaint fails to
plead sufficient facts to state a proper claim for relief.
The second amended complaint does not state a claim under
§ 1983, because it does not allege any violation of a
federal constitutional or statutory right, see West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988), Jones v.
Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002), nor does it
show with any specificity how any defendant personally
participated in any violation of plaintiff's rights,
see Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir.
1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th
this action, plaintiff is attempting to invalidate the state
trial court's judgment imposing restitution. As this
court explained in its initial screening order, however,
plaintiff is barred from seeking such relief in this civil
[T]he court notes that plaintiff may be attempting to
challenge a state court's ruling through this civil
rights action. However, federal courts lack jurisdiction to
review or modify state court judgments. See Rooker v.
Fidelity Trust Company, 263 U.S. 413 (1923);
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). “[L]ower federal courts do
not have jurisdiction to review a case litigated and decided
in state court; only the United States Supreme Court has
jurisdiction to correct state court judgments.”
Gottfried v. Medical Planning Services, 142 F.3d
326, 330 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1041,
119 S.Ct. 592 (1998); see also Bianchi v.
Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 901 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“Stated plainly, Rooker-Feldman bars any suit
that seeks to disrupt or ‘undo' a prior state-court
judgment, regardless of whether the state-court proceeding
afforded the federal-court plaintiff a full and fair
opportunity to litigate her claims.”).
9 at 6. Because this court lacks jurisdiction to review or
otherwise “end” the state court's judgment,
this action must be dismissed. See Noel v. Hall, 341
F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (“If a federal
plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous
decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state
court judgment based on that decision,
Rooker-Feldman bars subject matter jurisdiction in
federal district court.”).
notice of the complaint's deficiencies and an opportunity
to amend, plaintiff is unable to state a cognizable claim for
relief. Therefore, this action should be dismissed
without further leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith,
203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Under Ninth
Circuit case law, district courts are only required to grant
leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts
are not required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks
merit entirely.”); see also Doe v. United
States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A]
district court should grant leave to amend even if no request
to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the
pleading could not be cured by the allegation of other
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No. 18) is denied as
2. Plaintiff's “motion to object courts judgment
and notice to appeal ruling request for writ of coram nobis
to be issued” (ECF No. 20) is denied.
3. Plaintiff's “motion for oral argument for relief
for a reversal of conviction/sentencing” ...