Herndon v. Marin County Conservatorship

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4 GERROD HERNDON, D1036323, Case No. 21-cv-00649-CRB (PR) 5 Plaintiff,

6 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL (ECF No. 6)

7 MARIN COUNTY CONSERVATORSHIP,

8 Defendant(s).

9 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner currently at Ruby’s Valley Care Home (RVCH), an || assisted living facility in Fresno, California, has filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 11 challenging the conservatorship from Marin County Superior Court pursuant to which he is || committed to RVCH. Plaintiff also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) which, based || solely on his affidavit of poverty, is GRANTED.

S 14 Plaintiff's § 1983 action must be DISMISSED because it is well established that lower 15 federal courts are without subject matter jurisdiction to review state court decisions. See District || of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust 17 || Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923); see also Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 18 || 2004) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts “from exercising subject matter || jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment.”). Plaintiffs only || possible challenge to his conservatorship in federal court is to file a petition for a writ of habeas 21 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after exhausting state judicial remedies. Cf. Duncan v. Walker, |} 533 US. 167, 176 (2001) (“federal habeas corpus may be available to challenge the legality of a || state court order of civil commitment”).

24 The clerk is directed to close the case and terminate all pending motions as moot. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 || Dated: February 26, 2021

27 oh

CHARLES R. BREYER

28 United States District Judge