United States District Court, D. Nevada
STANLEY RIMER, BRIAN O'KEEFE, JOHN ROSKY, RICHARD LANCASTER, Plaintiffs,
LUCINDA COUMOU, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB
MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 20)
(“R&R” or “Recommendation”)
relating to Plaintiffs' Applications to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis (ECF Nos. 3, 10) and pro se
First Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 14-1 to 14-4). Plaintiffs
filed an objection thereto on September 6, 2017
(“Objection”) (ECF No. 24). Plaintiffs have also
filed a motion to amend their complaint (ECF No. 25); and
Plaintiff Richard Allen Lancaster has filed a motion for a
free copy of the proposed second amended complaint (ECF No.
Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party
timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation, then the court is required to “make a
de novo determination of those portions of the
[report and recommendation] to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In light of
Plaintiff's objection, the Court engages in a de
novo review to determine whether to adopt Magistrate
Judge Cobb's Recommendation.
Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant
Plaintiffs' applications to proceed in forma
pauperis. The Magistrate Judge further recommended
that this case be dismissed and made the additional finding
that, as amendment appears futile, the dismissal should be
with prejudice. The Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge's reasoning. Plaintiffs argue that the Magistrate
Judge failed to apply the proper standard by accepting their
allegations as true. To the contrary, the Magistrate Judge
assumed the truth of the allegations, but found that
Plaintiffs fail to state a claim as a matter of law. In
addition to the reasons stated in the R&R, Plaintiff
cannot state a claim even considering the allegations in the
SAC because they are essentially appealing to this Court the
state court's decisions relating to their petitions for
writ of habeas corpus. However, under the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts may
not exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a de facto
appeal from a state court judgment. See Rooker v. Fid.
Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 414-17 (1923); D.C. Ct. of
Appeals, et al. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
State court litigants like Plaintiffs may only achieve
federal review of state court judgments by filing a petition
for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United
States. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482. Accordingly, this
Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge's
Recommendation in full.
therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No.
20) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
further ordered that Plaintiffs' Application to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis (ECF Nos. 3, 10) are granted;
however, Rosky is required to pay the initial partial filing
fee in the amount of $28.44; O'Keefe is required to pay
the initial partial filing fee in the amount of $13.10; and
Rimer is required to pay the initial partial filing fee in
the amount of $5.33. Lancaster is not required to pay an
initial partial filing fee. Thereafter, whenever
Plaintiffs' prison accounts exceed $10, they will be
required to make monthly payments in the amount of twenty
percent of the preceding month's income credited to his
account until the full $350 filing fee is paid.
further ordered that Plaintiffs' motion to amend (ECF No.
25) is denied.
further ordered that Plaintiff Richard Allen Lancaster's
motion for a free copy of the proposed second amended
complaint (ECF No. 26) is granted. The Clerk of Court is
directed to send Plaintiff Lancaster one copy of the proposed
second amend complaint along with exhibits which comprise of
further ordered that the Clerk file the Complaint (ECF No.
14-1 to 14-4).
ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice.
Clerk is instructed to enter judgment and close this case.
The proposed second amended complaint
(“SAC”) is about 70 pages in length. Federal
civil pleading is notice pleading. E.g., Starr
v. Baca,652 F.3d 1202, 1212-16 (9th Cir. 2011). The
notice pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) can be violated not
only “when a pleading says too little, ”
but also “when a pleading says too
much.” Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106,
1109 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 57
(Oct. 6, 2014); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d
1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir.1996) (affirming a dismissal under
Rule 8, and recognizing that “[p]rolix, confusing
complaints such ...