Case 8:21-cv-01565-MWF-JPR Document 49 Filed 04/01/22 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:2738

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 10 EDWARD L. CLARK, JR., ) Case No. SACV 21-1565-MWF (JPR) 11 ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND 12 ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. v. ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 ) STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., ) 14 ) Defendants. ) 15 ) 16 The Court has reviewed the Complaint, records on file, and 17 Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge, which 18 recommends that Defendants’ motions to dismiss be granted and the 19 motion to strike Plaintiff’s state-law claims be denied as moot 20 and that the action be dismissed. On March 15, 2022, Plaintiff 21 objected to the R. & R.; the attorney Defendants responded on 22 March 30. Defendant Michaelson didn’t respond. Although the 23 Objections are largely unintelligible, the Court attempts to 24 address them. 25 Plaintiff challenges the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the 26 extrinsic-fraud exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine doesn’t 27 apply. (See Objs. at 3-13, 17-18.) He claims that a 28 nondefendant state-court judge committed extrinsic fraud by 1 Case 8:21-cv-01565-MWF-JPR Document 49 Filed 04/01/22 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:2739

1 issuing a letter “respond[ing] to [Plaintiff’s] allegations of 2 judicial misconduct” against Defendant Michaelson. (Id. at 3.) 3 That letter, Plaintiff says, “prevent[ed] the appellate court 4 from reviewing [his] Appeal without prejudice and prevented the 5 Commission on Judicial performance from reviewing any of the 6 criminal allegations.” (Id. at 3-4; see also id. at 17 (arguing 7 that letter “prevented the appeals court from ruling on any of 8 the fraudulent activities, only addressing subject matter 9 jurisdiction”).) The judge had allegedly “been a co-conspirator 10 of the criminal enterprise who unlawfully set out to extort a 11 settlement assuming . . . they could procure immunity hiding 12 behind [the] Rooker-Feldman doctrine.” (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff 13 insists that that judge — along with Defendants — “chose to 14 circumvent the judicial process for apparent financial gain” and 15 “intentionally conspire to break the law.” (Id. at 12.) 16 To start, Plaintiff’s claims here, like those in the 17 Complaint, are plainly frivolous: they’re based on irrational and 18 unfounded allegations of a grand conspiracy against him. See 19 Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992) (court may dismiss 20 as frivolous claim supported only by “fanciful,” “fantastic,” 21 “delusional,” “irrational,” or “wholly incredible” allegations); 22 Forte v. Cnty. of Merced, No. 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-BAM., 2014 WL 23 4745923, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2014) (dismissing complaint 24 that was “characterized by a familiar pattern of allegations that 25 some governmental entity or person did not respond favorably to 26 [plaintiff], and then alleging, based on nothing more than 27 speculation, that whatever setback he experienced was the result 28 of a grand conspiracy against him”). But his fraud claim fails 2 Case 8:21-cv-01565-MWF-JPR Document 49 Filed 04/01/22 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:2740

1 for an even simpler reason, as the Magistrate Judge explained: 2 the state-court judge wasn’t an adverse party in the underlying 3 state-court action. (See R. & R. at 16.) Even the law quoted by 4 Plaintiff acknowledges that any extrinsic fraud must arise from 5 “something done by the successful party to [the] suit.” (Objs. 6 at 2 (quoting United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 65 7 (1878)).) On top of that, Plaintiff never even explains how the 8 letter was actually false or otherwise deceived the state court. 9 (See, e.g., id. at 3 (noting only that letter revealed “conflict 10 of interest” and intended to “create judicial immunity”), 11 11 (letter was “self serving” and “conflict of interest”).) 12 The letter didn’t, as Plaintiff insists, prevent the state 13 appellate court from “ruling on any of the fraudulent 14 activities.” (Id. at 17; see also id. at 5 (alleging that judge 15 “succeeded in the cover up” because “appellate court only looked 16 at subject matter jurisdiction and stated 12 of 13 issues did not 17 get reviewed”).) Rather, Plaintiff did that himself: 18 As stated above, we cannot review the remaining 19 issues. One reason is that a section 473 motion is not 20 the proper procedure for disputing the court’s 21 evidentiary rulings at trial (parol evidence, judicial 22 notice). Another reason is that [Plaintiff] failed to 23 provide supporting argument and authority (Code of Civil 24 Procedure section 631.8 issue). A third reason is that 25 we cannot review orders subsequent to the ones identified 26 in the notices of appeal (orders issued after April 15, 27 2018). A final reason is that the issue was not first 28 raised in the trial court (spousal support). 3 Case 8:21-cv-01565-MWF-JPR Document 49 Filed 04/01/22 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:2741

1 (Att’ys’ Mot. Dismiss, Req. Judicial Notice, Ex. 10 at 13-14.) 2 The Magistrate Judge correctly found that the extrinsic-fraud 3 exception doesn’t apply.1 4 Plaintiff complains, again, that he never agreed to have 5 Defendant Michaelson hear his underlying family-law case. (See 6 Objs. at 12.) Thus, he claims, Michaelson’s rulings are “void” 7 and not intertwined with the action here. (Id.) But as the R. & 8 R. explained, that is exactly why they are intertwined (never 9 mind that the state court of appeal rejected his argument on this 10 score): his claims are premised on the family-law court’s 11 allegedly erroneous rulings. (See R. & R. at 11-12.) And he 12 doesn’t deny that he seeks to undo those rulings, as the 13 Magistrate Judge noted. (See R. & R. at 12.) She didn’t err. 14 Next, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly 15 found that the state appellate court affirmed Defendant 16 Michaelson’s order requiring Plaintiff to continue to make 17 monthly equalization payments to his ex-wife. (Objs. at 20.) 18 But it did. (See Att’ys’ Mot. Dismiss, Req. Judicial Notice, Ex. 19 10 at 2 (“We affirm the order.”), 14 (“The orders . . . are 20 affirmed.”).) 21 Finally, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the Complaint to 22 bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Objs. 19-20.) But the 23 24 1 Despite failing to timely object to Defendants’ requests for 25 judicial notice, which the Magistrate Judge therefore granted, Plaintiff now “objects to the [C]ourt accepting the Truth of the 26 matter” of the state-court judge’s letter. (Objs. Judicial Notice at 2.) But he never states how the Magistrate Judge did so. (See 27 id. at 6 (requesting that Court reconsider R. & R.’s findings “if [it] consider[ed] documents for the truth of the matter”).) 28 Indeed, the letter wasn’t necessary to her findings. 4 se 8:21-cv-01565-MWF-JPR Document 49 Filed 04/01/22 Page5of5 Page ID #:2742

1 || Complaint already purported to bring at least some claims under 2 || that section. (See Compl. at 3.) And as the attorney Defendants 3 |} point out (see Resp. at 2-3), he can’t assert such a claim 4] against them because they are private actors and didn’t do 5 |] anything under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 642, 49 (1988). At any rate, because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine 7 would still bar this lawsuit, amendment would be futile. See 8 || Chaudry v. Cal. Ct. of App., No. 3:11-cv-508-JAH (NLS), 2011 WL 9113121679, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2011) (finding that because 10 || Rooker-Feldman barred suit, amendment would be futile), aff’d, 11582 F. App’x 706 (9th Cir. 2014). 12 It therefore is ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to dismiss 13 ||) this lawsuit are GRANTED and the motion to strike Plaintiff’s 14 | state-law claims is DENIED as moot. Judgment is to be entered in 15 || Defendants’ favor, dismissing this action without prejudice. 16 C () / (]

MICHAEL W. IFITZGHRALD

18 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28