Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Byron Case, Petitioner v. Douglas County, Oregon, et al.

Case: 21-35851, 12/10/2021, ID: 12312494, DktEntry: 19, Page 1 of 1

FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

DEC 10 2021

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U S. COURT OF APPEALS

BYRON CASE, and as Dependents,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DOUGLAS COUNTY OREGON; et al.

No.

21-35851

D.C. No. 6:21 -cv-01193-MC

District of Oregon,

Eugene

ORDER

Defendants-Appellees.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

The district court certified that this appeal is not taken in good faith and

revoked appellant’s in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). On

October 20, 2021, the court ordered appellant to explain in writing why this appeal

should not be dismissed as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (court shall

dismiss case at any time, if court determines it is frivolous or malicious).

Upon a review of the record and responses to the court’s October 20, 2021

order, we conclude this appeal is frivolous. We therefore deny appellant’s motion

to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 2) and dismiss this appeal as

frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

All pending motions are denied as moot.

DISMISSED.

AT/MOATT

"Appendix B"

Case 6:21-cv-01193-MC

/*\

Document 5

Filed 09/09/21

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

BYRON CASE,

Civ. No. 6:21-cv-01193-MC

Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.

DOUGLAS COUNTY OREGON ET AL,

Defendants.

J

MCSHANE, Judge:

Plaintiff, pro se, brings this motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, in an action

against Douglas County, two circuit court judges, and the Douglas County Sheriffs Office.

^ESB^i!ali^'es^tBlE3:h§-l^:e.cQ,urCj^atrperlv'ai^fd§d!KiS3'isahiliitV"benefits~as~spt)usal'sirppo^-^

Compl. 8, ECF No. 1.

Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(h)(3) provides: “If the court determines at any time that

it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

This Court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted. Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987)

(citations omitted). Likewise.plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, this Court is requkffiLfcL

dismiss^the case at any time if the court determines that” the action or appeal is “frivolous or

malicious” gr-^faiEuto-state-a-daim-on-whiehTgliefTnav-be-granted^’ 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

1 - OPINION AND ORDER

i*

'fit

Case 6:21-cv-01193-MC

Documents

Filed 09/09/21

Page 2 of 4

Upon review, plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED,

but plaintiffs complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with prejudice, and plaintiffs motion for a

preliminary injunction, ECF No. 3, is DENIED as moot.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“In civil rights cases where the plaintiff appears pro se, [this Court] must construe the

pleadings liberally and must afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A.

Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). This Court must give a pro se

litigant “leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of

the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks

omitted). “Moreover, before dismissing a pro se civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim,

[this Court] must give the plaintiff a statement of the complaint’s deficiencies.” Id.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks damages for claims of extortion and false imprisonment, treason, due

process violations, and violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. See Compl. 10-14. Plaintiffs

complaint centers on a July 10, 2017 judgment from Douglas County Circuit Court Judge

FrancesBurge awarding a lump sum of $234,000 in spousal support to Plaintiffs former spouse.

Compl. Ex. 1 at 1-2. Plaintiffs appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals was unsuccessful. See Id.

at 10. Plaintiff was subsequently held in contempt of court for repeated refusal to pay. Id. at 6,

Hr-

11-12.

To survive an assessment under FRCP 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C.. § 1915(e)(2)(B), plaintiff

must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Under this standard, plaintiffs alleged facts must

constitute “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:21-cv-01193-MC Document 5 Filed 09/09/21 Page 3 of 4

/"S

556 U.S. 662. 678 (2009). This Court must assume that the allegations contained in the

A

complaint are true. Id.

V

i

'oomr^Meh

dlaintlTT-Sr

federal courts from hearing claims that collaterally attack prior state court decisions. See Ignacio

v. Judges of U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit, 453 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2006);

District of Columbia Court ofAppeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 & n.16 (1983); Rooker v.

Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923).

:on to exercise ai

n er e

review over state court judgments. See Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 858-59

(9th Cir. 2008); see also Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482-86; Rooker, 263 U.S. at 415-416. “The

clearest case for dismissal based on the Rooker^Feldman doctrine occurs when ‘a federal

^aintif^ssertS(a^Je^Nvron^i^lle|edl^^neoi«clecisiori>b^aistete^ourtj(mid|See^relief

LG!

Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d

609, 613 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Noel v. Hall, 34i F.3d 1148,1164 (9th Cir. 2003)). However,

the doctrine is equally applicable to bar the federal courts “from exercising subject matter

jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment.” Reusser, 525 F.3d

at 859 (internal quotations and citations omitted). An action broueht in federal court constitutes

i

i

such an appeal if “claims raised in the federal court action <r_e'‘ inextricably intertwined’^^h [a]

state court's decision such that the adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state

rulin gorreq u ire th e district court to interpret the-application of state laws or procedural rules. Id.

(quoting Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003)). In essence, the RookerFeldman doctrine provides that “a party losing in state court is barred from seeking what in

substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court, based

3 - OPINION AND ORDER-----'-------

Case 6:21-cv-01193-MC

V_-

Document 6

Filed 09/09/21

Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

BYRON CASE,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 6:21-cv-01193-MC

v.

JUDGMENT

>

DOUGLAS COUNTY, et al,

Defendants.

MCSHANE, Judge:

J

Based on the record, this case is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 9th day of September, 2021

/s/ Michael J. McShane

Michael McShane

United States District Judge

1-JUDGMENT

-ft

U

Case: 21-35851,01/03/2022, ID: 12328718, DktEntry: 20, Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FILED

JAN 03 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

BYRON CASE, and as Dependents,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

No. 21-35851

D.C. No. 6:21-cv-01193-MC

U.S. District Court for Oregon,

Eugene

DOUGLAS COUNTY OREGON; et al.,

MANDATE

Defendants - Appellees.

The judgment of this Court, entered December 10, 2021, takes effect this

date.

This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule

41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

FOR THE COURT:

MOLLY C. DWYER

CLERK OF COURT

By: David J. Vignol

Deputy Clerk

Ninth Circuit Rule 27-7

"Appendix A"

Additional material

from this filing is

available in the

Clerk's Office.