Simon v. Bostic
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed three pro se civil actions filed by Phillip W. Simon against various defendants, including judicial officers and court employees. The court dismissed all three cases with prejudice based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Younger abstention, and judicial immunity.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of Case No. 3:24-CV-01665 with prejudice“First, as for 24-CV-01665, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies. The Court cannot enter injunctive relief that will fundamentally alter the family court’s decision affecting his benefits.” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that the plaintiff is seeking relief that would alter a state court judgment, which is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The citation to Noel v. Hall supports this proposition. The dismissal with prejudice is appropriate because the lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a fundamental defect that cannot be cured by amendment. |
Dismissal of Case No. 3:25-CV-00107 with prejudice“Simon III, 25-CV-00107, involves an ongoing state child support proceeding. Pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine, this Court’s interference with that proceeding would amount to a de facto injunction.” | agree with court The court applies Younger abstention to a case involving an ongoing state child support proceeding. The citation to Kitchens v. Bowen supports the application of abstention in the context of state proceedings. The court notes the plaintiff failed to show an exception to abstention. Dismissal with prejudice is generally appropriate when abstention is based on the existence of a parallel state proceeding, though some courts dismiss without prejudice to allow the state proceeding to conclude. However, given the pro se nature and the specific finding that the federal claims cannot be raised in state court, the court's decision is defensible, though the 'with prejudice' aspect is a point of potential debate in abstention cases. The order states the plaintiff failed to supply facts indicating he cannot raise claims in state court, which is a prerequisite for Younger. The reasoning is sound. |
Dismissal of Case No. 3:25-CV-00109 with prejudice“Simon II, 25-CV-00109, is based on a “judicial collusion” theory against various judicial officers and employees... Judicial immunity bars such claims.” | agree with court The court correctly applies judicial immunity to claims against judicial officers for acts performed in their official capacities. The citations to Ashelman v. Pope and Jackson v. United States support the proposition that judges are absolutely immune from liability for judicial acts, even in their individual capacity. The dismissal with prejudice is appropriate because judicial immunity is an absolute bar to the claims. |
Dismissal of all three cases with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)“Plaintiff's above-captioned lawsuits are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).” | agree with court The court consolidates the dismissal of all three cases under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The specific grounds for each case (Rooker-Feldman, Younger, Judicial Immunity) are addressed individually. The use of 12(b)(1) is appropriate for Rooker-Feldman (lack of subject matter jurisdiction) and potentially Younger (abstention). The use of 12(b)(6) is appropriate for judicial immunity (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted). The dismissal with prejudice is consistent with the nature of the defects identified. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies established doctrines (Rooker-Feldman, Younger, Judicial Immunity) to the specific facts of each case. The citations are appropriate and support the court's conclusions. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a pro se case where the court explained the ruling on the record. The dismissal with prejudice is consistent with the nature of the legal defects identified.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PHILLIP W. SIMON, Case No: 3:24-CV-01665-CAB-MSB Case No. 3:25-CV-00109-CAB-MSB 12 Plaintiff, Case No. 3:25-CV-00107-CAB-MSB 13 v. ORDER DISMISSING CASES WITH 14 TANISHA BOSTIC, et al., PREJUDICE 15 Defendants, 16 17 PHILLIP W. SIMON, 18 Plaintiff, 19 v. 20 MICHAEL D. WASHINGTON, et al., 21 Defendants, 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 1 PHILLIP W. SIMON, 2 Plaintiff, 3 v. 4 DEBORAH A. CUMBA, 5 Defendant, 6 8 On March 6, 2025 this Court held a hearing on the three above-captioned cases to 9 discuss the Court’s tentative ruling and the pending motion to dismiss. Plaintiff, 10 proceeding pro se, appeared telephonically. The Court explained its ruling on the record 11 and dismissed all three cases with prejudice. As explained to Plaintiff, the Court’s analysis 12 tracks with is prior orders. 13 First, as for 24-CV-01665, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies. The Court cannot 14 enter injunctive relief that will fundamentally alter the family court’s decision affecting his 15 benefits. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003) (“If a federal plaintiff asserts 16 as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court[] and seeks relief from a 17 state court judgment based on that decision, Rooker–Feldman bars subject matter 18 jurisdiction in federal district court.”). 19 Simon III, 25-CV-00107, involves an ongoing state child support proceeding. 20 Pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine, this Court’s interference with that proceeding 21 would amount to a de facto injunction. Plaintiff has failed to supply any facts indicating 22 that he cannot raise his federal claims in those proceedings. Abstention is appropriate in 23 this case. See Kitchens v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 1337, 1341–42 (9th Cir. 1987). 24 Moreover, all three cases involve claims against judicial officers and/or court 25 employees. Simon II, 25-CV-00109, is based on a “judicial collusion” theory against 26 various judicial officers and employees. [See Doc. No. 1 at 2–3.] Simon III involves a 27 28 2 1 ||lawsuit against a judicial officer who presided over Plaintiff's ongoing case. Judicial 2 ||immunity bars such claims. Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en 3 banc) (“Judges and those performing judge-like functions are absolutely immune from 4 || damage liability for acts performed in their official capacities.) And contrary to Plaintiff's 5 ||representations at the hearing, judicial immunity applies even when a judicial officer is 6 in their individual capacity. See Jackson v. United States, 896 F.2d 1370 (9th Cir. 7 1/1990). 8 The Court explained these (and additional) reasons for dismissal at the hearing. 9 || Plaintiff's above-captioned lawsuits are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 10 ||P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). 11 12 Itis SO ORDERED. 13 14 || Dated: March 6, 2025 € 15 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No: 3:24-CV-01665-CAB-MSB Case No. 3:25-CV-00109-CAB-MSB