1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELIZABETH ROSE WENZLER, No. 2:24-cv-2458 DC AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”), and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) will therefore be granted. 21 I. Screening 22 A. Standards 23 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

(e)(2). A 26 claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v.

U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court will 28 (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly 1 baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and 2 (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton 3 Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena,

(9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied,

1037 (2011). 5 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 6 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) (court 7 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes,

(1974) (court must 8 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 9 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner,

, 520 10 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 11 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt,

, 12 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 13 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 14

(2009). 15 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 16 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly,

. “A claim has 17 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 18 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal,

678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 20 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. 21 Carlson,

(9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in 22 Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000)) (en banc). 23 B. The Complaint 24 Plaintiff brings suit against the Sacramento Superior Court for actions related to a state 25 court case; the complaint refers in conclusory fashion to misconduct, bad faith, no honest 26 business, and attempt to violate the Rule 8.4 of the rules of professional conduct. ECF No. 1 at 3- 27 4. As a basis for federal question jurisdiction, plaintiff references a “22.5 million dollar demand 28 letter Sacramento Superior Court certified mailed to Attorney Brian DeAmicis who Sacramento 1 Justice Hall removed as attorney from my case[.]” ECF No. 1 at 4. The factual basis for the 2 claim reads in full: 3 Sacramento Superior Court sent me papers 9/6/2024 I got Sacramento Superior Court sent attorney Brian DeAmicis 22.5 4 million dollar demand papers my work. Attorney not representing me. Sacramento Superior Court sent a demand letter. Whiteout no 5 amount of money listed on. 6 Id. at 5. 7 The statement of relief sought reads, “Sacramento Superior Court 4 years wrong to 8 Elizabeth Wenzler, gave Elizabeth Wenzler no protection on the Restraining orders were all Done 9 Wrong to Elizabeth Wenzler Sacramento Superior Court send papers to attorney Brian DeAmicis 10 they should have never mailed out to.” Id. at 6. 11 Attached to the federal complaint are documents related to a pro se lawsuit that plaintiff 12 brought in state court regarding a car accident and ensuing insurance dispute. Id. at 7-29. 13 C. Analysis 14 This complaint must be dismissed, for several reasons. First, it is barred by the Eleventh 15 Amendment. Plaintiff cannot sue the California State judiciary or any of its departments or 16 officers because the Eleventh Amendment bars any such suits. See Simmons v. Sacramento 17 County Superior Court,

(9th Cir. 2003). Eleventh Amendment immunity 18 extends to the Sacramento County Superior Court. Because the only named defendant is immune 19 from suit, this case cannot proceed. 20 Second, the complaint fails to establish a basis for federal jurisdiction. Although plaintiff 21 indicates that jurisdiction is based on the presence of a federal question, she identifies no federal 22 law that has been violated. The complaint fails to satisfy

, because it does not 23 contain a claim arising under a federal law or the United States Constitution, and is not authorized 24 by a federal statute that both regulates a specific subject matter and confers federal jurisdiction. 25 See Baker v. Carr,

(1962). 26 Third, to the extent that plaintiff is seeking relief from—or relief based on—the 27 adjudication of her state court case, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes the exercise of 28 subject matter jurisdiction. See Dist. of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman,

, 483 1 n. 16 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,

(1923). The Rooker-Feldman 2 doctrine forbids federal court consideration of claims that are inextricably intertwined with the 3 validity of state court judgments. See Cooper v. Ramos,

(9th Cir. 2012). 4 Fourth, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff 5 does not specify any cause of action, and no potentially cognizable cause of action appears from 6 the face of the complaint. 7 For all these reasons, the complaint must be dismissed. 8 II. Leave to Amend is Not Appropriate 9 Leave to amend is not appropriate in this case. Ordinarily, pro se litigants are granted 10 liberal leave to amend. “Valid reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith, 11 prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics,

1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, given the defects described above, the undersigned finds that 13 leave to amend would be futile and should therefore not be granted. 14 III. Pro Se Plaintiff’s Summary 15 The Magistrate Judge is recommending that your case be dismissed because you cannot 16 sue a State Court in Federal Court. You may object to this recommendation within 21 days, if 17 you wish to do so. 18 IV. Conclusion 19 Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma 20 pauperis (ECF No. 2) be GRANTED but that the complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED without 21 prejudice because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and because this 22 lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and that this case be closed. 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within twenty one days 25 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 26 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a document 27 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure 28 to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 1 | order. Turner v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst,

, 2 | 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | DATED: October 28, 2024 . ~ 4 Hhttrn— Aare 5 ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28