1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 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 10 || assisted living facility in Fresno, California, has filed a pro se complaint under

11 challenging the conservatorship from Marin County Superior Court pursuant to which he is 12 || committed to RVCH. Plaintiff also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) which, based 13 || solely on his affidavit of poverty, is GRANTED. S 14 Plaintiff's § 1983 action must be DISMISSED because it is well established that lower 3 15 federal courts are without subject matter jurisdiction to review state court decisions. See District 16 || of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,

(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust 5 17 || Co.,

(1923); see also Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 5 18 || 2004) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts “from exercising subject matter 19 || jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment.”). Plaintiffs only 20 || possible challenge to his conservatorship in federal court is to file a petition for a writ of habeas 21 corpus under

after exhausting state judicial remedies. Cf. Duncan v. Walker, 22 |} 533 US. 167, 176 (2001) (“federal habeas corpus may be available to challenge the legality of a 33 || 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