From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Foscalina v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 20, 2015
2:14-cv-0937-MCE-CKD-PS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2015)

Opinion


JOEL FOSCALINA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Defendants. No. 2:14-cv-0937-MCE-CKD-PS United States District Court, E.D. California. March 20, 2015

          ORDER

          MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.

         Through the present action, Plaintiff Joel Foscalina, proceeding in pro se, challenges orders issued by state court judges arising out of the dissolution of Plaintiff's marriage, as well as the state court determination that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant under California law. The Eastern District of California is named as a defendant even though Plaintiff's complaint makes no allegations against this court.

         On April 23, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued findings recommending that this matter be dismissed since a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review alleged errors may by a state court in civil cases. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923). As the Magistrate Judge noted, Plaintiff alleges improprieties related to domestic relation and vexatious litigants orders, and fails to raise any cognizable federal challenge to state law. On May 14, 2014, the undersigned adopted the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations in full and dismissed the case. Plaintiff thereafter, on May 21, 2014, filed the Motion for Reconsideration now before the Court.

         Under Eastern District Local Rule 230(j), an application for reconsideration must show what new or different facts are claimed to exist at the time of reconsideration which did not exist beforehand, or what other grounds exist for the Motion. Plaintiff's instant request fails to meet that standard. He provides absolutely no new or different facts or circumstances to indicate that reconsideration is appropriate. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 12) is accordingly DENIED.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

         Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.


Summaries of

Foscalina v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 20, 2015
2:14-cv-0937-MCE-CKD-PS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2015)
Case details for

Foscalina v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

Case Details

Full title:JOEL FOSCALINA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Mar 20, 2015

Citations

2:14-cv-0937-MCE-CKD-PS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2015)