Kenan Biberovic v. Culver City ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 19 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENAN BIBEROVIC, individually and on No. 19-55512
behalf of all others similarly situated,
D.C. No.
Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:18-cv-08632-DDP-PLA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CULVER CITY, an incorporated public
municipality; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, COOK,*** and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Kenan Biberovic appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Deborah L. Cook, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
without leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We vacate and remand with
instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1
Biberovic was convicted in state court at a trial by declaration and fined
$490 under California Vehicle Code §21453(a) after he turned right at a red light
without first coming to a complete stop behind the limit line. He then filed a class
action against Culver City and its mayor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of
the Eighth Amendment, alleging that he was at most guilty of violating California
Vehicle Code §21453(b), which carries only a $290 fine, and that therefore his
$490 fine was excessive.
Biberovic’s suit is subject to dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
In relevant part, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits a federal district court
from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from
a state court judgment, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1158, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003),
unless the judgment was obtained through extrinsic fraud that prevented a party
from presenting his claims, Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1140–41 (9th
Cir. 2004). Biberovic does not contest that his suit is a de facto appeal from a state
court judgment, and he had a full opportunity to argue he was not guilty of
1
Biberovic’s request for judicial notice of his motion for permanent
injunction and associated exhibits is DENIED as moot.
2
violating California Vehicle Code § 21453(a) before the state court. His suit is
therefore barred under Rooker-Feldman.
We accordingly vacate the district court’s judgment and remand with
instructions to dismiss without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Frigard v. United
States, 862 F.2d 201, 204 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[A] case dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction should be dismissed without prejudice . . . .”). Costs shall be
taxed against Biberovic. Fed. R. App. P. 39(a).
VACATED and REMANDED.
3