Simon v. Cumba
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Simon v. Cumba (2026-02-20) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court dismissed three related civil cases filed by a pro se plaintiff with prejudice, finding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Younger abstention, and judicial immunity barred the claims. The dismissal was based on the court's determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction or that the claims were legally barred.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of Case No. 3:24-CV-01665-CAB-MSB 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 applies the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to bar a federal district court from reviewing or altering a state court judgment. The citation to Noel v. Hall supports the proposition that federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear claims that are essentially appeals of state court decisions. |
Dismissal of Case No. 3:25-CV-00107-CAB-MSB 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 where federal claims can be raised in state court. The dismissal with prejudice is consistent with the doctrine when the state forum is adequate. |
Dismissal of Case No. 3:25-CV-00109-CAB-MSB with prejudice“Simon II, 25-CV-00109, is based on a “judicial collusion” theory against various judicial officers and employees. [See Doc. No. 1 at 2–3.] ... Judicial immunity bars such claims.” | agree with court The court dismisses the case based on judicial immunity. The citations to Ashelman v. Pope and Jackson v. United States correctly state that judges are absolutely immune from liability for acts performed in their official capacities, even when sued in their individual capacity. This is a well-established principle of federal law. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound and relies on well-established doctrines (Rooker-Feldman, Younger, Judicial Immunity) with appropriate Ninth Circuit citations. However, it is a summary order that does not detail the specific facts of the plaintiff's claims or the state court proceedings, making it difficult to verify the precise application of the doctrines to the specific facts. The dismissal with prejudice is appropriate for jurisdictional defects (Rooker-Feldman) and absolute immunity, but Younger abstention typically results in dismissal without prejudice unless the state forum is inadequate or the claims are barred by other doctrines. The order does not explicitly address why dismissal with prejudice is appropriate for the Younger abstention case, though it may be implied that the claims are barred by the ongoing state proceeding.
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