Setsuko Inobe v. Noriko Hino

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SETSUKO INOBE,

Case No. 2:23-cv-08102-SB-JPR Plaintiff, v.

NORIKO HINO, ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR

LACK OF JURISDICTION

Defendant. Plaintiff Setsuko Inobe, a self-represented litigant, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), Dkt. No. 2, along with a complaint requesting “a fair retrial” in state court, Dkt. No. 1 at 11. The Court issued an order to show cause (OSC) why it had subject-matter jurisdiction in light of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Dkt. No. 8. Under that doctrine, a district court has no authority “to overturn an injurious state-court judgment.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 292 (2005). In response to the OSC, Plaintiff sets forth several reasons why she believes the state court proceedings were unfair, including that (1) the failure to provide an interpreter violated 28 U.S.C. § 1827;1 (2) the California Court of Appeal erred in neglecting to hear her retrial request; and (3) “three new accomplices were added to the defendant’s side” and perjured themselves in state court. Dkt. No. 16. After identifying these issues, Plaintiff…