Opinion
3:23-cv-01359-YY
10-20-2023
JOHN FLY, Plaintiff, v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Youlee Yim You United States Magistrate Judge.
FINDINGS
Pro se plaintiff John Fly alleges that defendant Multnomah County Sheriff's Department violated his constitutional rights by issuing an eviction order and committing an assault during the process. In an order dated September 22, 2023, this court granted plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF 1), identified specific defects in the complaint, and ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint by October 13, 2023. Order, ECF 6. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff's claim related to the eviction order is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and his assault claim fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for relief. Therefore, this case should be dismissed.
The IFP statute provides that “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). “A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction; . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may include in the alternative or different types of relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). “Rule 8 does not require ‘detailed factual allegations, ' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2006) (citations omitted). “A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
Federal courts hold a Pro se litigant's pleadings to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987); see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (per curiam) (holding a document filed Pro se “is to be liberally construed”; a plaintiff need only give the defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds on which it rests) (citation omitted). “Although . . . Pro se litigant[s] . . . may be entitled to great leeway when the court construes [their] pleadings, those pleadings nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice of what it is that it allegedly did wrong.” Brazil v. U.S. Dep't of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995).
This court is “obligated to consider sua sponte whether [it has] subject matter jurisdiction. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
Here, plaintiff asserts a Fourteenth Amendment claim, alleging that, on September 12, 2023, the “Multnomah County Sheriff's Office violated my right to due process by serving an eviction order that I had not been notified of or sent a copy of via mail or email beforehand.” Compl., ECF 2. However, “section 1983 suits against state officials enforcing a writ of possession issued by a state court are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.” Cupp v. Straley, No. 15-CV-01565-JD, 2015 WL 4735212, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015), aff'd, No. 16-15329, 2016 WL 10592256 (9th Cir. Nov. 15, 2016). Plaintiff's due process claim “depend[s] on finding either that the writ of possession issued by the state court was invalid, or that defendants could not enforce it.” Id. (citing cases). “As the cited cases make clear, this United States District Court is without jurisdiction to consider these claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.” Id. Additionally, where the sheriff was executing a court order, it is entitled to quasijudicial immunity. See Coverdell v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., State of Wash., 834 F.2d 758, 764 (9th Cir. 1987) (observing that “persons who faithfully execute valid court orders are absolutely immune from liability for damages in civil rights actions challenging conduct authorized by the order”). Because these defects are incurable, this claim should be dismissed with prejudice.
In fact, on August 10, 2023, a Multnomah County Circuit Court judge issued a Residential Eviction General Judgment after trial, awarding possession of the premises to the landlord. See Adler Residential Properties, LLC as agent for Francis Court Properties LLC v. Celeste Hamilton, John Fly, Multnomah County Circuit Court No. 23LT10106. The judgment reflects that the defendants appeared at that proceeding, which was held on the date that the judgment was entered. The docket also reflects that the defendants subsequently filed a motion to stay the judgment, which a Multnomah County Circuit Court judge denied on August 25, 2023.
Citing Dang v. Oakland Police Dept., No. C 13-4155 PJH, 2014 WL 793613, at *6-8 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2014) (dismissing claims against Alameda County Sheriff's Office for enforcing state-court-issued writ of possession pursuant to Rooker-Feldman); Duenas v. Freitas, No. C 13-0836 SBA, 2013 WL 3298249, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2013) (holding that subject matter jurisdiction was not present where federal claims depended on finding state court writ of possession invalid); Sorensen v. Clarke, No. EDCV 08-1142-CAS (JWJx), 2009 WL 122585, at *4-5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2009) (holding that claims against Sheriff Leroy D. Baca and Los Angeles County for carrying out eviction pursuant to writ of possession were “barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because they are essentially a collateral attack on the Los Angeles County Superior Court's issuance of a writ of possession”); Busch v. Torres, 905 F.Supp. 766, 771-72 (C.D.Cal.1995) (holding that claims for due process and Eighth Amendment violations against sheriff's officials for enforcing writ of possession issued by state court constituted a “challenge to the state court judgment” and were barred by Rooker-Feldman); Homola v. McNamara, 59 F.3d 647, 651 (7th Cir.1995) (holding that suits against deputies who execute a state court order are barred by Rooker-Feldman).
Plaintiff also claims “[a]n assault was committed on me in the process, ” but does not state how this alleged assault violated his rights “under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the United States, ” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or allege “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “To state a valid § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege that he suffered a specific injury because of the conduct of a particular defendant, and he must allege an affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant.” McGary v. Inslee, No. 3:22-CV-5310-DGE, 2022 WL 2156979, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 15, 2022) (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976)); Cimino v. Gomez, No. C 94-20135 RPA, 1995 WL 55319, *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 1995) (recognizing that, for claims under Section 1983, “[a] complaint that fails to name the specific defendant is not cognizable”) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). Because plaintiff could potentially allege a valid claim for assault, this claim should be dismissed without prejudice.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff's claim related to the eviction order should be dismissed with prejudice and his claim alleging an assault should be dismissed without prejudice.
SCHEDULING ORDER
These Findings and Recommendations will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due Monday, November 13, 2023. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendations will go under advisement on that date.
If objections are filed, then a response is due within 14 days after being served with a copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendations will go under advisement.
NOTICE
These Findings and Recommendations are not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of a judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.