Jovee v. Snohomish County
2:21-cv-01590
| W.D. Wash. | Apr 18, 2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff filed suit in Skagit County Superior Court against 35 state, local, and private actors alleging violations arising from child-support and family-law proceedings after an Oklahoma dissolution and subsequent Washington administrative and superior-court proceedings.
- The case was removed to federal court in November 2021; in January 2022 plaintiff filed a notice seeking voluntary dismissal of all defendants except Washington State Attorney General Robert Ferguson (and initially Meera Shin).
- Administrative Law Judge DeBlieck (OAH) entered a child-support order; Snohomish County Superior Court (Judge Farris) affirmed DSHS/OAH in July 2021; plaintiff sought review/appeal in state court before removing or re-filing in federal court.
- The magistrate judge recommends granting plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of all defendants except Ferguson (terminating the State, Snohomish County defendants, and Shin) without prejudice and denying several pending motions as moot.
- The court concluded it lacks federal subject-matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims against Ferguson under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine because the federal suit functions as a de facto appeal or is inextricably intertwined with state-court judgments; the recommendation is to deny Ferguson’s Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal but remand the remaining claims to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss most defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) | Jovee seeks dismissal of all but Ferguson (and initially Shin) without prejudice. | Some defendants opposed dismissal or sought dismissal with prejudice, arguing prejudice and procedural posture. | Court permitted dismissal without prejudice for all defendants except Ferguson; motions by those defendants denied as moot. |
| Whether Snohomish County defendants should be dismissed with prejudice because plaintiff sought dismissal after adverse motions were filed | Jovee argues dismissal should be without prejudice. | Snohomish County contends plaintiff moved to avoid a likely adverse ruling and will suffer legal prejudice. | Court declined to impose dismissal with prejudice, finding no plain legal prejudice. |
| Whether federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over claims against AG Ferguson (Rooker–Feldman) | Jovee contends federal claims and statutory challenges bring federal-question jurisdiction and that Rooker–Feldman does not bar his suit. | Ferguson argues the claims are a de facto appeal of state-court decisions and thus barred by Rooker–Feldman; Rule 12(b)(1) lack of jurisdiction. | Court held Rooker–Feldman bars federal review of the state-court child-support judgment; remand to state court is appropriate (deny dismissal on other grounds but remand). |
| Whether any claims against Ferguson fall outside Rooker–Feldman (e.g., independent constitutional or conspiracy claims) | Jovee asserts conspiracy, constitutional violations, and statutory claims that are independent of the state judgment. | Ferguson asserts plaintiff’s allegations are tied to the state-court proceedings and therefore are inextricably intertwined. | Court found no plausible independent claims against Ferguson beyond challenging the state proceedings; such claims are inextricably intertwined and barred in federal court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state-court judgments)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (federal courts cannot review final state-court judicial decisions)
- Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2012) (doctrine bars claims inextricably intertwined with state-court rulings)
- Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2013) (framework for identifying forbidden de facto appeals)
- Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2003) (describing de facto appeal and Rooker–Feldman application)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (subject-matter jurisdiction is threshold issue)
- Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143 (9th Cir. 1982) (standard for evaluating prejudice on Rule 41(a)(2) dismissals)