Ochoa

INTRODUCTION

18 Plaintiff has responded to the order to show cause as to why this action should not be 19 dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (Dkt. 20 No. 19). For the reasons stated below, his response is unavailing, and this action is

DISMISSED.

STATEMENT

23 Plaintiff Johnny M. Ochoa filed this action asserting constitutional due process violations 24 in state court proceedings which resulted in an adverse paternity finding. In sum, plaintiff 25 submitted to genetic testing in a paternity dispute, the results of which did not exclude him as 26 the father. The Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo found that paternity was 27 established, and rejected plaintiff’s challenges to that determination on four separate occasions (Compl. 4–8). Plaintiff now sues in federal court claiming that the process afforded to him in state court violated the Federal Constitution, premised on the bases that plaintiff does not speak fluent English and that the state court proceedings did not explicitly address all of plaintiff’s arguments. Our complaint requests as relief that the state court…