The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
SAMIR LAKHOUIRI,
Plaintiff, Case. No. 1:24-cv-1305-CL
v. OPINION & ORDER
PATRICK WOLKE, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________
MCSHANE, Judge:
Pro se plaintiff Samir Lakhouiri seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). This
court has discretion in deciding whether to grant in forma pauperis status. See O'Loughlin v.
Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). To qualify for in forma pauperis status, a civil litigant
must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the claims the litigant
seeks to pursue are not frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); O'Loughlin, 920 F.2d
at 617.
Although the Complaint is somewhat unclear, Plaintiff clearly is dissatisfied with the
result of child custody proceedings that occurred in state court. Plaintiff attempts to bring claims
against Patrick Wolke and Robert Bain, judges in Josephine County. Compl. 2; ECF No. 1.
Plaintiff also names John Burdick, Court Commissioner in San Bernadino County, the San
Bernadino County Sheriff, the Grants Pass Police Department, and the states of Oregon and
California as Defendants. Compl. 2–3. Plaintiff alleges Defendants “deprived Plaintiff of his
parental rights through unauthorized court orders, false police reports, and judicial misconduct.”
Compl. 6. Plaintiff alleges that back in March 2017, Judge Patrick Wolke permitted
discriminatory cross-examination by Attorney Brett Claar regarding Plaintiff’s citizenship.”
Compl. 6. Plaintiff alleges the mediator was biased and “every document filed by Respondent or
her attorney, or Mediator [sic] is false with intent.” In 2022, “Judge Robert Bain facilitated
continued deprivation of Plaintiff’s parental rights by not upholding true judicial integrity.”
Compl. 7. Plaintiff challenges the restraining order issued against him in March 2024. Compl. 7.
Plaintiff alleges “Defendant judges and officials consistently acted against the best interests of
Plaintiff by ignoring evidence, delaying judicial processes, and allowing baseless accusations.”
Compl. 7. Plaintiff alleges “Consistent interference with Plaintiff’s legal rights to visitation and
custody.” Compl. 8. Plaintiff alleges “The unauthorized actions and judicial failures have led to
the disintegration of my family unit, causing irreparable harm that severely affects both me and
my children. This disruption results in loss of stability and security that money cannot restore.”
Compl. 9.
For his requested relief, Plaintiff asks the Court to “rectify the violations of [Plaintiff’s]
rights . . . including halting the restraining order issued against me by unauthorized Court
Commissioner.” Compl. 10. Plaintiff also seeks “immediate Enforcement” of: “the Virtual Visits
through Zoom as ordered by Court on January 11, 2024. . . . lunch visitations as ordered by
Court on January 11, 2024. . . . Supervised visitations, at least until the hearing.” Compl. 10.
Plaintiff’s federal Complaint is clearly an attempted end run around state court
proceedings and is therefore barred by the Rooker‐Feldman doctrine. The Rooker-Feldman
doctrine precludes lower federal courts from hearing claims that collaterally attack prior state
court decisions.” See Ignacio v. Judges of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 453 F.3d
1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2006); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,
482 n.16 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415–16 (1923). Perhaps more
importantly, federal courts are also generally prohibited from interfering in issues of domestic
relations. This exception applies to issues involving child custody. Andenbrandt v. Richards, 504
U.S. 689, 703–04 (1992).
Additionally, to the extent his custody proceedings are ongoing (and the Complaint
indicates they are), Younger abstention bars Plaintiff’s claims. “Younger abstention is a common
law equitable doctrine holding that a federal court should refrain from interfering with a pending
state court proceeings. Poulos v. Caesars World, Inc., 379 F.3d 654, 699 (9th Cir. 2004)
(citations omitted). Younger abstention applies when: (1) the state proceedings are ongoing; (2)
the claims implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings provide an adequate
forum to raise federal questions. Weiner v. County of San Diego, 23 F.3d 263, 266 (9th Cir.
1994).
Finally, to the extent Plaintiff brings claims against judges for their actions in state court
proceedings, the claims are barred by judicial immunity. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225
(1988). That absolute immunity applies not only to judges, but also “for advocates and
witnesses” involved in the proceedings. Id. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff challenges “judicial
mistakes or wrongs,” such challenges must come “through ordinary mechanisms of review,” i.e.,
the appellate process. Id.
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
As this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, the claims must be dismissed.
Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for a temporary
restraining order are DENIED. Any outstanding motions are DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 13th day of August, 2024.
_____/s/ Michael McShane ______
Michael McShane
United States District Judge