Ballester v. Boucek, 3:23-cv-02244

Plaintiff Eleanor Ballester, proceeding pro se, filed a series of five related federal cases challenging decisions from her ongoing California state family law case.
The cases allege constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, focused on orders (including domestic violence restraining orders) issued by state judicial officers.
Ballester’s complaints targeted orders she claims were issued unlawfully, primarily by Commissioner Boucek, as well as conduct by other judges, attorneys, and witnesses involved in the family law proceedings.
Defendants moved to dismiss on several grounds, including lack of federal jurisdiction (Rooker-Feldman doctrine), judicial immunity, lack of state action by non-judicial defendants, and procedural defects in Ballester’s amended complaints.
The Court resolved multiple motions to dismiss and to strike, consolidated for efficiency due to overlapping defendants, allegations, and facts across the three remaining cases.
The Court dismissed all three complaints (and stricken amended complaints) without leave to amend, holding federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state court judgments in family law matters.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rooker-Feldman doctrine (subject matter jurisdiction)	Federal court can void or enjoin state court orders that violated due process	Federal court cannot review state court decisions; only the U.S. Supreme Court can	Dismissed – Claims are de facto appeals barred by Rooker-Feldman
Judicial Immunity	Judges acted unlawfully, maliciously, or outside jurisdiction	State judges are absolutely immune for judicial acts	Dismissed – Judges are immune for actions taken in judicial capacity
State Actor Requirement (Non-Judicial Defendants)	Private attorneys and litigants conspired with judges under color of law	Only state actors can be liable under §1983; private attorneys/parties are not	Dismissed – Non-judicial defendants not state actors per §1983
Leave to Amend	Amendment could potentially cure the complaints	Amendment would be futile; legal defects cannot be fixed	Denied – Amendment would be futile given jurisdictional and immunity bars

Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2003) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state court judgments under Rooker-Feldman)
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (judges enjoy absolute immunity for judicial acts)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (necessity of factual, non-conclusory pleading for plausibility)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (facial plausibility required to survive a 12(b)(6) motion)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (defendant must act under color of state law for §1983 liability)
Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., Inc., 590 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2010) (private parties generally not liable under §1983)