Michael Holland v. County of Los Angeles , 604 F. App'x 543 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 06 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL J. HOLLAND, No. 12-57145
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00461-AG-JC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 9, 2015
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, WATFORD, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Michael Holland (Holland) appeals the district court’s dismissal
of his action against the County of Los Angeles (County), Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), and individual DCFS social
workers (collectively, Defendants). Holland’s complaint alleges that, in retaliation
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
for authoring a book and threatening to sue DCFS, Defendants falsely and
maliciously accused Holland of child abuse, caused his loss of employment, and
listed him on the Child Abuse Central Index (CACI), thus violating his civil rights.
The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Reviewing the district court’s decision de novo,
Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2010), we reverse because
Holland’s action does not present a de facto appeal of a state court decision.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars district court jurisdiction over an action
that (1) “contains a forbidden de facto appeal of a state court decision” and (2)
“seek[s] to litigate an issue that is inextricably intertwined with the state court
judicial decision from which the forbidden de facto appeal is brought.” Bell v. City
of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted). A de facto
appeal exists where (1) “a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly
erroneous decision by a state court” and (2) the plaintiff “seeks relief from a state
court judgment based on that decision.” Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th
Cir. 2003).
Neither de facto appeal factor is presented here. First, Holland does not
allege that a state court committed any legal error. Instead, Holland “asserts as a
legal wrong an allegedly illegal act or omission by an adverse party,” id., namely
2
DCFS’s allegedly unconstitutional investigation of Holland for child abuse,
conduct during the juvenile dependency petition against Holland, and actions
causing Holland to be listed and to remain on CACI. Second, Holland does not
seek relief from a state court judgment. Instead, Holland seeks damages and
injunctive and declaratory relief related to his ongoing listing on CACI. In fact, on
the record presented, Holland does not appear to have lost in state court. The
juvenile dependency proceeding against Holland and his ex-wife was dismissed
without prejudice. Defendants contend that Holland suffered an adverse decision
in family court, but no family court decision appears in the record. Even if an
adverse family court decision were in the record, Holland does not claim that the
family court committed any factual or legal error and he does not seek relief from
the family court’s judgment. Accordingly, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not
bar the district court’s jurisdiction over Holland’s action.
We do not reach the “equitable abstention” and res judicata arguments that
Defendants make on appeal because the district court did not rule on them and
should be afforded an opportunity to do so in the first instance. See Kougasian v.
TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1143-44 (9th Cir. 2004) (declining to address a res
judicata argument after holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply);
F.D.I.C. v. Nichols, 885 F.2d 633, 638 (9th Cir. 1989) (reversing dismissal and
3
declining to reach other potential grounds for dismissal upon which district court
did not rely).1
The district court’s dismissal of Holland’s case is VACATED and this
matter is remanded for further proceedings. The parties shall bear their own costs
on appeal.
1
Counsel for Defendants conceded at oral argument that res judicata
does not bar Holland’s suit, at least to the extent that Holland challenges
Defendants’ listing of his name on CACI. Counsel for Defendants also stated that,
upon Holland’s request, the County will promptly provide Holland with a hearing
to address the listing of his name on CACI.
4