Tauscher v. Hanshew, 3:23-cv-03776

Background

Plaintiff Jacqueline Tauscher, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued her ex-husband Eric Hanshew alleging violations of the Respect for Marriage Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, seeking custody and financial relief arising from a Maricopa County dissolution decree.
The claims challenge the state-court dissolution judgment (custody and property division) that was affirmed on appeal in Arizona.
Magistrate Judge Hixson granted IFP and recommended dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim.
The District Court reviewed the R&R de novo after Tauscher objected and requested appointed counsel.
The Court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, alternatively found the claims barred by res judicata based on a prior federal suit in Arizona that was dismissed and whose appeal was dismissed as frivolous, and therefore dismissed the action without prejudice and denied leave to amend.
The Court also denied Tauscher’s request for appointment of counsel, finding no exceptional circumstances (no likelihood of success and no unusual complexity).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction (Rooker–Feldman)	Tauscher contends federal-question jurisdiction exists under Respect for Marriage Act and § 1981 and asks federal court to remedy state-court dissolution errors.	Defendant argues federal court lacks jurisdiction because the claims seek to overturn a final state-court judgment.	Court: Rooker–Feldman bars federal review; action is a de facto appeal of the state dissolution decree — dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Claim preclusion (res judicata)	Tauscher reasserts civil-rights and discrimination claims arising from the same divorce proceedings.	Defendant invokes res judicata because Tauscher previously litigated these claims in federal court (D. Ariz.), which resulted in a final judgment.	Court: Claims barred by res judicata — identity of claims, final judgment on the merits, and same parties/privity.
Leave to amend	Tauscher sought leave to amend her complaint.	Defendant opposed amendment as futile and prejudicial given prior litigation history.	Court: Denied leave to amend — amendment would be futile (jurisdictional bar and claim preclusion) and would unduly prejudice defendant.
Appointment of counsel	Tauscher requested appointed counsel.	Defendant opposed; asserted no exceptional circumstances.	Court: Denied — no constitutional right in civil cases; Tauscher showed neither likelihood of success nor complexity warranting counsel.

Key Cases Cited

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (federal courts may not act as appellate review of state-court judgments)
D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (limits on federal review of state-court matters and when lower federal courts lack jurisdiction)
Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2003) (tests for when federal claims are inextricably intertwined with state-court rulings)
Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2012) (focus on relief sought to determine de facto appeal under Rooker–Feldman)
Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (1981) (principles of claim preclusion/res judicata)
Blonder-Tongue Lab. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313 (1971) (res judicata requirements and preclusion policy)
W. Radio Servs. Corp. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 1997) (elements for res judicata in Ninth Circuit)
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally)
Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2012) (leave to amend standards for pro se plaintiffs)
Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspe n, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (factors for denying leave to amend, including prejudice)
Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (standards governing leave to amend)
Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2005) (res judicata conserves resources and prevents vexatious litigation)
Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (1981) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel in most civil cases)
Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2004) (appointment of counsel in civil cases only in exceptional circumstances)
Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1983) (factors for appointing counsel: likelihood of success and ability to articulate claim)
Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986) (both factors must be weighed for appointment of counsel)