1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONNELL BLEDSOE, No. 2:23–cv–158–DAD–KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

13 v. DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE 14 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SUPERIOR (ECF Nos. 2, 3.) COURT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff Donnell Bledsoe, who is proceeding without counsel in this action, requests leave 19 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).1 (ECF Nos. 2, 3.) Plaintiff’s affidavit makes the required 20 financial showing, and so plaintiff’s request is granted. 21 However, the determination that a plaintiff may proceed without payment of fees does not 22 complete the inquiry. Under the IFP statute, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss any 23 claims that are “frivolous or malicious,” fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or 24 seek monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Further, the federal 25 court has an independent duty to ensure it has subject matter jurisdiction in the case. See United 26 Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). 27 1 Actions where a party proceeds without counsel are referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 1 Legal Standards 2 Pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 3 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post–Iqbal). Prior to dismissal, the court is 4 to tell the plaintiff of deficiencies in the complaint and provide an opportunity to cure––if it 5 appears at all possible the defects can be corrected. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 6 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). However, if amendment would be futile, no leave to amend need be 7 given. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996). 8 i. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 9 The court must dismiss a case if, at any time, it determines that it lacks subject matter 10 jurisdiction. Rule 12(h)(3).2 A federal district court generally has original jurisdiction over a 11 civil action when: (1) a federal question is presented in an action “arising under the Constitution, 12 laws, or treaties of the United States” or (2) there is complete diversity of citizenship and the 13 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). Further, a plaintiff 14 must have standing to assert a claim, which requires an injury in fact caused by defendant(s) that 15 may be redressed in court. Harrison v. Kernan, 971 F.3d 1069, 1073 (9th Cir. 2020). Under the 16 well-pleaded complaint rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented 17 on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 18 386, 392 (1987). A federal question cannot be premised on a defense. See Provincial Gov't of 19 Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009) (“federal question on 20 which jurisdiction is premised cannot be supplied via a defense; rather, the federal question must 21 be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer.”). 22 Analysis 23 While plaintiff’s story is unclear and hard to follow, it appears plaintiff is alleging he is 24 the executor of a house located in Stockton, California, which may have been left for his three 25 siblings. (ECF No. 1 at 8.) It appears this property may have been the subject of a different suit 26 in state court involving disputed ownership and breach of contract. (Id. at 22-24.) Furthermore, 27

28 2 Citation to the “Rule(s)” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise noted. 1 as part of the contract dispute, plaintiff alleges Pearlie Townes owes him $20,000 for debt 2 incurred while on instruction from Townes to search for two houses relating to a family business. 3 (Id. at 10.) Although it is unclear what happened in the prior suit, it appears plaintiff may have 4 received an unfavorable decision as he is unhappy with the judicial staff involved in the prior case 5 and was issued a notice of eviction from the above-referenced property for March 10, 2023. (Id. 6 at 7-11.) Plaintiff makes many conclusory assertions and ultimately alleges he will lose his house 7 due to the negligence of several judicial employees, conveying his dissatisfaction with the state 8 court’s decision. (Id. at 7-8.) 9 The crux of plaintiff’s allegations is his alleged defense of sovereign immunity, which he 10 alleges the state court did not recognize or apply. (Id. at 7-10.) On the face of the complaint, 11 plaintiff identified the nature of the suit as a rent, lease, and ejectment and a civil rights violation. 12 (Id. at 27.) Plaintiff has brought suit against defendants San Joaquin County Superior Court, 13 Superior Court Judge George Abdullah, Pearlie Townes, Spencer Sinclair, and John M. Harris, 14 and seeks a stay of eviction and $650,000.00 in damages. (Id. at 2-3, 21.) Plaintiff’s handwritten 15 complaint disguises his general dissatisfaction with a state court’s decision. For numerous 16 reasons, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s case because there is no 17 federal question before the court, and diversity jurisdiction is not satisfied. See 28 U.S.C. 18 §§ 1331, 1332(a). 19 Complete diversity does not exist here because plaintiff and all defendants are residents of 20 California. (ECF No. 1 at 2-3). Thus, the first requirement of diversity jurisdiction fails. See 28 21 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) (both the amount in controversy and the full diversity requirements must be 22 met for diversity jurisdiction). 23 Regarding federal questions, first, plaintiff’s allegation regarding negligence in the 24 proceedings over the house is not a federal question. See e.g., K.C. v. Victor Valley Transit 25 Auth., 2018 WL 6219787, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2018) (remanding a case from federal court to 26 state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff alleged state law causes of action 27 of negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress). Second, plaintiff’s alleged defense 28 of sovereign immunity to the enforcement of the decision held by the state court does not give 1 rise to a federal question.3 (Id. at 6.) Federal question jurisdiction cannot be premised on a 2 defense rather than on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. See Provincial Gov't of Marinduque, 3 582 F.3d at 1086 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[F]ederal question on which jurisdiction is premised cannot be 4 supplied via a defense; rather, the federal question must be disclosed upon the face of the 5 complaint, unaided by the answer.”). Third, it appears the true issue before the court is plaintiff’s 6 dissatisfaction with the state court’s decision and his request for a stay of eviction. (Id. at 7-9.) 7 However, this court has no jurisdiction over the final decision of a state court. See, e.g., Pinkston 8 v. Lueck, 22 F. App'x 782, 783 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Federal district courts do not have jurisdiction 9 over direct challenges to final decisions of state courts, even when the challenge involves federal 10 constitutional issues.”). Should plaintiff choose to challenge the state court’s final decision and 11 notice of eviction, an appeal should be filed with a court that has proper jurisdiction.4 12 Ordinarily, the court liberally grants a pro se plaintiff leave to amend. However, because 13 the record here shows that plaintiff would be unable to cure the above-mentioned deficiencies 14 through further amendment of the complaint, the court concludes that granting leave to amend 15 would be futile. See Cahill, 80 F.3d at 339. This includes the fact that, even though plaintiff 16 checked the “other civil rights violation” box in the civil cover sheet, no claim was actually 17 stated. Regardless, if plaintiff intended to bring forth a 1983 claim against the state court judge, it 18 would fail due to absolute judicial immunity. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th 19 Cir. 1986) (noting judges are absolutely immune from liability for acts performed in their official 20 capacities). The same is applicable to the allegations against the judicial staff. See Demoran v. 21 Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 156 (9th Cir. 1985) (“Courts have extended absolute judicial immunity from 22 damage actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 not only to judges but also to officers whose functions 23 3 The court does not reach the issue of whether plaintiff is a member of a tribe subject to 24 sovereign immunity. However, it appears legally frivolous. See Lewis v. Clarke, U.S. 155, 137 S. Ct. 1285, 1288 (2017) (holding a suit against a tribal employee in his individual capacity did 25 not implicate sovereign immunity).

26 4 Plaintiff’s allegation of judicial misconduct against a state court judge does not give rise to a 27 federal question in this case. The proper remedy for such an allegation is to file a complaint with the proper authority (e.g., The Commission on Judicial Performance of the State of California). 28 1 | bear a close association to the judicial process.”). To the extent plaintiff would attempt to raise a 2 || contract dispute with any party regarding the house, this is not a federal question. See, e.g., 3 || Caterpillar Inc., 482 U.S. at 387 (noting breach of contract is a state law claim). 4 ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's IFP application is GRANTED. 6 | Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. The action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 8 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to CLOSE this case. 9 || These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to 10 || the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after 11 || being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 12 || the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 13 || Recommendations.” Plaintiffis advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 14 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 15 | (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 || Dated: April 6, 2023 Aectl Aharon 18 KENDALL J. NE AMISD, bled.158 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28