Wu v. Pesce

Wu · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · March 13, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-0760-TLN-JDP (PS)

Summary

The court recommends dismissing without leave to amend a pro se plaintiff’s § 1983 complaint concerning an allegedly unlawful eviction and state criminal proceedings. It concludes that the federal court lacks jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and that the defendants are otherwise immune or were not alleged to act under color of state law. The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted, and the matter was referred to a district judge for review of the recommendations.

Holdings

  1. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives federal district courts of jurisdiction over claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by state-court decisions, including claims framed as constitutional challenges to those decisions.
  2. The claim for damages against the judge was barred by absolute judicial immunity because the alleged conduct consisted of judicial acts within the court's jurisdiction.
  3. The claim for damages against prosecutor Pierson was barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity for conduct involving the traditional functions of a criminal advocate.
  4. The public defenders were not liable under § 1983 for their work on plaintiff's criminal cases because they did not act under color of state law in that capacity.
  5. The complaint failed to state a § 1983 claim against Ordonez and Margorie because it did not allege that either defendant acted under color of state law.
  6. Dismissal without leave to amend was appropriate where the jurisdictional and pleading deficiencies could not be cured by amendment.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the federal district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly resulting from state-court criminal proceedings.
  2. Whether the complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the judge, prosecutor, public defenders, former employer, and private individual.
  3. Whether dismissal without leave to amend was appropriate because the pleading deficiencies could not be cured by amendment.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (21)

  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)(followed)
  • Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg'l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc)(followed)
  • Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997)(followed)
  • Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)(followed)
  • D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483 n.16, 486 (1983)(followed)
  • Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 21.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…