Earls v. Greenwood, 19-cv-01317-VC. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20190612a38
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jun. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER RE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 8 VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in part. To the extent Earls challenges the decision to declare her a vexatious litigant, her lawsuit is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (not to mention res judicata). To the extent Earls contends that the defendant violated her First Amendment rights by precluding her from appealing the vexatious litigant determination wit
Summary: ORDER RE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 8 VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in part. To the extent Earls challenges the decision to declare her a vexatious litigant, her lawsuit is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (not to mention res judicata). To the extent Earls contends that the defendant violated her First Amendment rights by precluding her from appealing the vexatious litigant determination with..
More
ORDER RE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 8
VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.
The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in part. To the extent Earls challenges the decision to declare her a vexatious litigant, her lawsuit is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (not to mention res judicata). To the extent Earls contends that the defendant violated her First Amendment rights by precluding her from appealing the vexatious litigant determination without first seeking permission, such a claim does not appear to be barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (although the claim may be barred for any number of reasons relating to timeliness, preclusion, immunity, or failure to state a claim). Accordingly, a response to the complaint is due 21 days from the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
