United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE RECOMMENDATION RE:
DISMISSAL
Marcia
S. Krieger, Chief United States District Judge
THIS
MATTER comes before the Court on the Magistrate
Judge's sua sponte Recommendation that the Court
dismiss the instant case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction (#23), issued after issuance of
an Order to Show Cause why the matter should not be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (#4)
and consideration of Plaintiff's response thereto
(#18). The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff
Danielle Alfaro's Response thereto
(#31), which the Court deems to be an
Objection to the Recommendation.
I.
Jurisdiction
The
Magistrate Judge's Recommendation is that this action be
dismissed due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The
Court properly exercises its jurisdiction to determine
whether it has that jurisdiction to determine the merits of
Ms. Alfaro's claims. Weber v. Mobil Oil Corp.,
506 F.3d 1311, 1313-14 (10th Cir. 2007); Pritchett v.
Office Depot, Inc., 420 F.3d 1090, 1094 (10th Cir.
2005).
II.
Procedural History
Plaintiff
Danielle Alfaro (“Ms. Alfaro”) initiated this
action by filing her pro se Complaint on March 29,
2018. (#1).[1] As Defendants in this action, she
named the County of Arapahoe, the City of Centennial,
Colorado, as well as six John Does (collectively,
“Defendants”).
In her
original Complaint, Ms. Alfaro asserts claims against
Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985
for various purported constitutional violations. See
generally (#1). Upon review of
Plaintiff's 51-page Complaint, the basis for
Plaintiff's claims appears to be grievances with
determinations made by and conduct of Colorado state Judge
Bonnie McLean in Ms. Alfaro's domestic relations case in
Colorado state court. Indeed, every one of Ms. Alfaro's
claims attack either Judge McLean's conduct or Judge
McLean's rulings. Ms. Alfaro has since filed two Amended
Complaints, and each adds new claims further attacking the
conduct of Judge McLean. See (#6;
#17). In each Complaint, Ms. Alfaro requests to
enjoin Judge McClean's orders with regard to divorce and
child custody matters and monetary relief. See
(#1; #6; #17). Plaintiff has also sought
mandamus relief in the form of “immediate summary
judgment and injunctive relief by dismissing, reversing,
vacating, and/or quashing all biased, prejudicial, and/or
void judgments issued at any time during the proceedings of
the Arapahoe County Court[.]” (#7 at
3).
Questioning
this Court's subject matter jurisdiction to address Ms.
Alfaro's claims, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order to
Show Cause. It set forth authority addressing limitations in
the scope of this Court's subject matter jurisdiction
with regard to domestic relations matters governed by state
law and the application of the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. Ms. Alfaro responded that she seeks no award of
divorce, alimony or child custody in this action. Instead,
she seeks to vindicate her “constitutional
rights”.
The
Magistrate Judge ruled that notwithstanding Ms. Alfaro's
characterization of her claims, the relief that she seeks is
essentially a determination of her rights in a state domestic
relations case. In essence, Ms. Alfaro seeks appellate type
review of determinations made by the state court. In her
Objection, Ms. Alfaro renews her previous arguments but does
not object to the procedural facts or characterizations made
in the Recommendation.
III.
Standard of Review
When a
magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive
matter, the parties may file specific, written objections
within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the
recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The district court reviews de novo
determination those portions of the recommendation to which a
timely and specific objection is made. See U.S. v. One
Parcel of Real Prop. Known as: 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d
1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). The issues to be determined are
legal in nature - whether the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction to determine the claims asserted, and if so,
whether the Court should abstain from doing so.
IV.
Analysis
As
observed by the Magistrate Judge, federal courts are courts
of limited subject matter jurisdiction. Gad v. Kan. State
Univ., 787 F.3d 1032, 1035 (10th Cir. 2015); Radil
v. Sanborn W. Camps, Inc., 384 F.3d 1220, 1225 (10th
Cir. 2004). Subject matter jurisdiction is a constitutional
prerequisite to hearing a case, and “because it
involves a court's power to hear a case, [it] can never
be forfeited or waived.” Arbaugh v. Y & H
Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006). Thus, federal courts
always have an independent obligation - no matter the stage
of litigation - to sua sponte consider
whether a they have subject matter jurisdiction over the
matters before them. Gad, 787 F.3d at 1035.
A.
Domestic Relations Exception to Federal Subject ...