McCracken v. Shapiro & Sutherland LLC, 2:17-cv-01596

Background

Plaintiff Ellen M. McCracken, proceeding pro se, filed a 117‑page "Dramatically Amended Proposed Complaint" and sought in forma pauperis (IFP) status and emergency relief to "restore" a private Oregon property she says was lost in foreclosure.
McCracken's filings seek relief from alleged fraud and other wrongs that occurred in prior Oregon litigation; she requests the federal district court to vacate or undo orders from that state proceeding.
The proposed amended complaint adds numerous new defendants (including federal judges and this court) but fails to plead how each defendant acted, when, or what actionable harm resulted to McCracken.
The submissions rely on conclusory labels (fraud, elder abuse, § 1983 claims) and extensive legal quotations, but lack coherent, specific factual allegations establishing federal jurisdiction or actionable claims here.
The Court treated the motion for relief from the other proceeding as an attempt to obtain appellate review of state‑court judgments, invoked the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, and denied the emergency/Rule 60‑type relief as improper in this court.
The Court denied IFP based on the facially frivolous and non‑viable proposed amended complaint, ordered McCracken to pay the filing fee within 21 days, and denied all other pending motions and notices.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court can grant relief that would vacate or overturn an Oregon court's foreclosure judgment	McCracken seeks restoration of property and relief from alleged fraud in the Oregon proceeding	Defendants (and court) assert federal court cannot review or vacate state‑court judgments; relief belongs in the state court or on appeal	Denied: Rooker–Feldman bars federal review of state court judgments; this court will not act as an appellate court
Whether McCracken's motion for emergency injunctive relief / Rule 60 relief is properly before this court	McCracken requests emergency relief to restore property and alleges unspecified fraud	Court notes motion seeks relief from another court's decision and lacks a specified order to vacate; Rule 60 cannot be used to attack another court's ruling	Denied as improper; such relief must be sought in the court that issued the judgment or on appeal
Whether the proposed amended complaint states a plausible federal claim and supports IFP status	McCracken alleges fraud, elder abuse, § 1983 claims, and wrongdoing by law firm and others	Court finds pleadings conclusory, incoherent, and lacking factual allegations sufficient under Twombly/Iqbal to show plausible claims or jurisdiction	Denied: complaint is frivolous/non‑viable; IFP denied and filing fee ordered within 21 days or case dismissed
Whether leave to amend should be granted to salvage the pro se complaint	McCracken submitted an extensive amended complaint but did not clarify jurisdictional or factual deficiencies	Court recognizes pro se leeway but finds amendment would not cure fundamental defects (attempt to relitigate state judgments; lack of factual basis)	Court denied IFP on this amended pleading and dismissed other motions; implied that further amendment would not save the suit absent proper claims and jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (federal courts cannot act as appellate courts to review state‑court judgments)
Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir.) (Rooker–Feldman bars suits that are de facto appeals of state court rulings)
Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir.) (same)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir.) (IFP complaints may be dismissed as frivolous)