1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 NIGEL CAIRNS Case No.: 22-cv-1283-CAB-KSC

11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. DISMISS

13 PETER SINGER et al. [Doc. Nos. 12, 15] 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against one San Diego Superior Court Commissioner, one 17 Superior Court trial judge, and three state appellate judges complaining about the outcome 18 of a lawsuit he litigated through appeal in state court against the Lions Community Service 19 Corporation (“LCSC”) and the Legal Aid Society of San Diego (“LASSD”). Defendants 20 have moved to dismiss, and Plaintiff has filed an opposition.1 The Court deems this motion 21 suitable for submission without oral argument and without the need for Defendants to file 22 a reply. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the 23 motion is granted. 24 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to “cases brought by state-court losers 25 complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court 26

27 1 Defendants’ unopposed request for judicial notice of the docket and two state court appellate opinions 28 1 proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those 2 judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,

(2005). 3 Under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, “a party losing in state court is barred from seeking 4 what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States 5 District Court based on the losing party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates the 6 loser’s federal rights.” Johnson v. DeGrandy,

, 1005–06 (1994) (citing 7 District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,

(1983), and Rooker 8 v. Fidelity Trust Co.,

(1923)). Review of state court decisions may only 9 be conducted in the United States Supreme Court. Feldman,

& 486; 10 Rooker,

; see also

. The Rooker-Feldman jurisdictional 11 bar applies even if the complaint raises federal constitutional issues. Feldman,

486. 13 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “bars a district court from exercising jurisdiction not 14 only over an action explicitly styled as a direct appeal, but also over the ‘de facto 15 equivalent’ of such an appeal.” Cooper v. Ramos,

(9th Cir. 2012) 16 (quoting Noel v. Hall,

(9th Cir. 2003)). “It is a forbidden de facto 17 appeal under Rooker–Feldman when the plaintiff in federal district court complains of a 18 legal wrong allegedly committed by the state court, and seeks relief from the judgment of 19 that court.” Noel v. Hall,

(9th Cir. 2003). Here, the operative First 20 Amended Complaint itself makes clear that this case is little more than a de facto appeal 21 of Plaintiff’s state court lawsuit against LCSC and LASSD. Even the relief sought in the 22 complaint includes an injunction against LCSC. [Doc. No. 4 at 6.] Moreover, Plaintiff 23 expressly does not argue against application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in his 24 opposition. [Doc. No. 14 at 4 (stating that he has “no comment” to make about the section 25 of Defendants’ motion arguing that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies).] 26 In light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies 27 and bars the Court from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint against the state 28 court judges who were involved in his state court lawsuit against LCSC and LASSD. See 1 || generally Reiner v. Cunningham, No. WD CV 11-8353-JFW,

, at *2 2 ||(C.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 11-8353-JFW 3 || W,

(C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2011) (dismissing case against state court 4 judge arising out of outcome of state court litigation before that judge as falling “squarely 5 || within the parameters of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine”). Accordingly, it is hereby 6 ||} ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED.” 7 Itis SO ORDERED. 8 ||Dated: January 26, 2023 (6 9 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 syeaintitt s motion for leave to electronically file documents [Doc. No. 15] is therefore DENIED AS