Stephen Favis v. Daryl Mallori, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Stephen Favis's application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismisses his complaint with leave to amend. The court concludes that the complaint inadequately pleads claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(2), alleges no claims against one defendant, and seeks relief barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Plaintiff is given thirty days to file an amended complaint or voluntarily dismiss the action.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it did not allege facts showing that defendants acted under color of state law.
2. The complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) because it alleged neither a conspiracy nor the required race-based class animus.
3. The complaint failed to state claims against Kim because it did not allege with sufficient particularity any overt acts by Kim supporting plaintiff's claims.
4. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred federal jurisdiction because plaintiff alleged that the state court erroneously authorized the restraining order and sought relief invalidating that judgment.
5. The court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state-law claims because no federal claim had been adequately pleaded and diversity jurisdiction was not alleged.
6. Plaintiff was granted an opportunity to amend the complaint and was required to allege each claim and each defendant's involvement in sufficient factual detail.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly stated claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(2).
2. Whether the complaint alleged sufficient personal involvement by defendant Myeong Bae Kim.
3. Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived the federal court of jurisdiction over claims seeking to invalidate a state-court restraining order.
4. Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissal of the federal claims.
5. Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to amend.

Disposition

dismissed