Opinion
3:17-cv-00649-PK
07-25-2017
AARON SCOTT FEELEY, Plaintiff, v. ALLAN R. EARL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#7) on June 27, 2017, in which he recommends this Court dismiss this matter sua sponte with prejudice and deny as moot Plaintiff's Application (#1) for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Plaintiff's Motion (#3) for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel. Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).
With respect to the recommendation to deny as moot Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, the Court notes Plaintiff did not pay a filing fee. Individuals seeking to file a civil action in this Court must pay a filing fee unless they qualify for in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a)(1). In order to qualify for in forma pauperis status, a plaintiff must show he is unable to pay the filing fee. When a plaintiff establishes he is unable to pay the filing fee, the Court must also screen the complaint to determine whether it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff's Application establishes he is unable to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Application (#1) for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
The Court, however, has also carefully considered Plaintiff's Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify that portion of the Findings and Recommendation in which the Magistrate Judge concludes this Court lacks subject-matter and personal jurisdiction. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in that portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation. As the Magistrate Judge explained in his Findings and Recommendation the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits federal courts from exercising de facto appellate review of final state court judgments. In addition, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that actions and claims subject to Rooker-Feldman are properly dismissed with prejudice. See, e.g., Ismail v. County of Orange, No. 14-56486, 2017 WL 2211266, at *3 (May 19, 2017) (Concluding the district court did not err when it dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff's claims that were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine). Accordingly, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS as modified Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (#7). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Application (#1) for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, DENIES as moot Plaintiff's Motion (#3) for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel, and sua sponte DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 25th day of July, 2017.
/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge