Summary
The court issued an order to show cause why Plaintiff Danielle Victor’s 239-page First Amended Complaint should not be dismissed. The court identified deficiencies under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 20, concluded that the asserted criminal-statute claims were not cognizable civil claims, and determined that claims challenging state-court proceedings appeared barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Plaintiff was ordered either to file a compliant second amended complaint or voluntarily dismiss the action by August 11, 2025.
Holdings
- The First Amended Complaint appeared subject to dismissal because it did not provide a short and plain statement identifying the claims asserted against each defendant, the factual conduct attributed to each defendant, the legal theories involved, and the relief sought.
- The First Amended Complaint appeared to improperly join the 32 defendants because Plaintiff did not allege claims against each defendant arising from the same transaction or occurrence and presenting a common question of law or fact.
- The First Amended Complaint appeared barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to the extent it challenged state-court rulings or sought relief from injuries caused by those rulings.
- Plaintiff lacked standing to bring federal or state criminal-law claims, and the cited criminal statutes did not provide a basis for civil liability or enforceable individual rights.
Questions Presented
- Whether the First Amended Complaint failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because it did not clearly identify the claims, defendants, factual bases, and requested relief.
- Whether the First Amended Complaint improperly joined 32 defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20.
- Whether the claims challenging or arising from prior state-court litigation were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
- Whether Plaintiff could assert civil claims based on alleged violations of federal and California criminal statutes.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (31)
- Bailey v. Clarke, 2012 WL 6720628, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2012)(followed)
- Stupy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 951 F.2d 1079, 1081 (9th Cir. 1991)(followed)
- Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980)(followed)
- Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- Gilreath v. Bach, No. EDCV 17-0694, 2017 WL 5593017, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017)(followed)
- Reed v. East End Props., Inc., No. ED CV 17-955-DMG (KKx), 2018 WL 6131211 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2018)(followed)
- Ellis v. City of San Diego, 176 F.3d 1183, 1189 (9th Cir. 1999)(followed)
- Sohal v. City of Merced Police Dep’t, 2009 WL 961465, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2009)(followed)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)(followed)
- Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 31.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…