Filed: Nov. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 04, 2016
Summary: JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL IN FAVOR OF THE JUDICIAL JS-6 DEFENDANTS JAMES V. SELNA , District Judge . This action came before the Court on the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff PAUL VIRIYAPANTHU ("Plaintiff") for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Defendants, TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, Chief Justice of California; and KATHRYN M. WERDEGAR, MING W. CHIN, CAROL A. CORRIGAN, GOODWIN H. LIU, MARIANO-FLORENTINO CUELLAR, and LEONDRA R. KRUGER, Justices of the
Summary: JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL IN FAVOR OF THE JUDICIAL JS-6 DEFENDANTS JAMES V. SELNA , District Judge . This action came before the Court on the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff PAUL VIRIYAPANTHU ("Plaintiff") for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Defendants, TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, Chief Justice of California; and KATHRYN M. WERDEGAR, MING W. CHIN, CAROL A. CORRIGAN, GOODWIN H. LIU, MARIANO-FLORENTINO CUELLAR, and LEONDRA R. KRUGER, Justices of the S..
More
JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL IN FAVOR OF THE JUDICIAL JS-6 DEFENDANTS
JAMES V. SELNA, District Judge.
This action came before the Court on the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff PAUL VIRIYAPANTHU ("Plaintiff") for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants, TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, Chief Justice of California; and KATHRYN M. WERDEGAR, MING W. CHIN, CAROL A. CORRIGAN, GOODWIN H. LIU, MARIANO-FLORENTINO CUELLAR, and LEONDRA R. KRUGER, Justices of the Supreme Court of California (collectively, the "Judicial Defendants").
The Court, on October 25, 2016, having entered an Order granting the Judicial Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, Judgment be entered in this action for the Judicial Defendants, and each of them, and against Plaintiff Paul Viriyapanthu as follows:
1. As to Plaintiff's First Cause of Action for violation of federal rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this claim because of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
2. As to Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action for violation of federal rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this claim because of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
3. Plaintiff cannot cure the jurisdictional deficiency in his pleading, and accordingly, the Judicial Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is granted without leave to amend. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Judicial
Defendants, and each of them, are the prevailing parties in this action. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), the Judicial Defendants are awarded their costs in an amount to be determined pursuant to the procedures specified in Local Rules 54-1 et seq.
