Anthony v. Roberts et al

1
3:25-cv-2486-CAB-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARIAN ANTHONY,
Plaintiff,
v.
TERRIE E. ROBERTS & LAURA
MILLER,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-2486-CAB-AHG
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING MOTIONS TO
DISMISS & STRIKE;
(2) DENYING MOTIONS FOR
LEAVE & FOR EXTENSION
[Doc. Nos. 5, 7, 8, 11]
On September 22, 2025, Plaintiff Marian Anthony filed a complaint against
Defendants Terrie Roberts and Laura Miller, alleging Section 1983 claims. [Doc. No. 1.]
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike portions of the complaint. [Doc.
Nos. 7, 8.] Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint and a motion
for an extension of time to respond to an order to show cause. [Doc. Nos. 5, 11.] For the
reasons below, the Court GRANTS the motions to dismiss and strike, and DENIES
Plaintiff’s motions for leave and for an extension.
///
///
Case 3:25-cv-02486-CAB-AHG Document 25 Filed 12/01/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 6

2
3:25-cv-2486-CAB-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. 	BACKGROUND
The Court recently dismissed a similar action Plaintiff filed, which stemmed from a
child custody proceeding in state court. 	Anthony v. Sanchez, No. 3:25-cv-1548-CAB-
AHG, 2025 WL 3208846 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2025). Plaintiff is the petitioner in a family
dissolution matter pending in Superior Court, entitled Marian Anthony v. Corina Galvez,
Case No. 19FL005322N. [Doc. No. 7-1 at 8.] Defendants Roberts and Miller are Judges
of the Superior Court of California. 	[Id. at 7.] 	Plaintiff alleges various issues regarding
how the Judges have conducted hearings, including overruling Plaintiff’s objections,
refusing to consider certain arguments, and requiring Plaintiff take an oath before
testifying/presenting arguments. 	[Doc. No. 1 at 4–6.] 	Plaintiff seeks damages, an
injunction requiring Defendants to recuse, and a declaration that Defendants violated his
First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and the Contract Clause. [Id. at 9.]
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) permits a party to move to dismiss based on the court's lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction. The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. See Gould
v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 790 F.2d 769, 774 (9th Cir. 1986). 	The party asserting
jurisdiction, here Plaintiff, has the burden of establishing that the court has subject-matter
jurisdiction. 	Ass’n. of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 778–79 (9th Cir.
2000). As such, the Court cannot reach the merits of any dispute until it confirms its own
subject matter jurisdiction. 	See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t., 523 U.S. 83, 95
(1998). 	A defense of lack of “subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court’s
power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waived.” United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S.
625, 630 (2002).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) permits a party to move to dismiss based on a “failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The Court evaluates whether a complaint
states a recognizable legal theory and sufficient facts in light of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2),
which requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” 	Although Rule 8 “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ . . . it [does]
Case 3:25-cv-02486-CAB-AHG Document 25 Filed 12/01/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 6

3
3:25-cv-2486-CAB-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
demand[] . . . more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007)).
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 	Id. 	(quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A claim is facially plausible
when the collective facts pleaded “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 556). 	There must be “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” 	Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). 	Facts “merely consistent with a
defendant’s liability” fall short of a plausible entitlement to relief. 	Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted). 	The Court need not accept as true “legal conclusions” contained in the
complaint, id., or other “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of
fact, or unreasonable inferences.” 	Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998
(9th Cir. 2010). The Court accepts as true all allegations in the complaint and construes
the allegations in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, here Plaintiff. 	See
Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). 	Moreover, as Plaintiff proceeds
pro se, the Court construes his complaint liberally. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342
(9th Cir. 2010).
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Motion to Dismiss; Motion for an Extension of Time
Defendants argue that they are immune from liability, and that Plaintiff’s claims are
conclusory and barred, inter alia, by Rooker-Feldman. The Court agrees.
“Judges . . . are absolutely immune from damage liability for acts performed in their
official capacities.” 	Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). 	“This
absolute immunity insulates judges from charges of erroneous acts or irregular action, even
when it is alleged that such action was driven by malicious or corrupt motives, or when the
exercise of judicial authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors.” In
Case 3:25-cv-02486-CAB-AHG Document 25 Filed 12/01/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 6

4
3:25-cv-2486-CAB-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
re Castillo, 297 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 2022) (internal citation and quotation marks
omitted). 	Despite suing Defendants in their individual capacity, Plaintiff seeks damages
for actions Defendants took in their official capacities as judges. 	[Doc. No. 1 at 4–6.]
Accordingly, the Court finds Defendants are immune to any damages liability.
Plaintiff also seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to recuse themselves from his
case. [Doc. No. 1 at 9.] “[T]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars direct federal district court
appellate review of state court judicial proceedings.” 	S. California Edison Co. v. Lynch,
307 F.3d 794, 804 (9th Cir. 2002). 	“If claims raised in the federal court action are
inextricably intertwined with the state court’s decision such that the adjudication of the
federal claims would undercut the state ruling . . . then the federal complaint must be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” 	Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895,
898 (9th Cir. 2003). 	Additionally, “the Court does not have the authority to order the
disqualification of a judge in a state court proceeding.” 	Alexander v. Bonta, No. ED CV
25-447-DMG-DTB, 2025 WL 1717657, at *1 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2025). 	Finally,
regarding Plaintiff’s sought declaratory relief, the Ninth Circuit has instructed “federal
courts [to] refrain from exercising jurisdiction in actions for declaratory relief because
declaratory relief has the same practical impact as injunctive relief on a pending state
proceeding[.]” Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 975 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS with prejudice the motion to dismiss. It is clear
to the Court that Plaintiff seeks to have a federal district court improperly interfere with an
ongoing state proceeding. Accordingly, leave to amend is unwarranted. See Karim-Panahi
v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A pro se litigant must be
given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies
of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”). As the complaint is dismissed with
Case 3:25-cv-02486-CAB-AHG Document 25 Filed 12/01/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 6

5
3:25-cv-2486-CAB-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
prejudice, the Court DENIES as moot the motion for an extension to respond to the order
to show cause.1
B. 	Motion to Strike
Defendants seek to strike Exhibits 1, 3, and 4, from Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff
states that the exhibits are transcripts from the hearings he takes issue with. [Doc. No. 1-2
at 2.] 	Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s exhibits are not certified copies of the official
transcripts nor created by an official court reporter or reporter pro tempore. [See Doc. No.
8-1 at 2–6.] 	Indeed, it appears Plaintiff created these transcripts himself and there is no
certification that these are the official transcripts from the Superior Court of California. As
these exhibits are not subject to judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201,
the Court does not consider them. See Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rts., Ltd., 551 U.S.
308, 322 (2007) (“[C]ourts must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as . . .
documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may
take judicial notice.”). The motion to strike is GRANTED.
C. 	Motion to File Supplemental Complaint
Plaintiff seeks to file, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d), a supplemental complaint
which makes the same challenges as his initial complaint albeit to a different judicial
hearing. 	[Doc. No. 5 at 8–10 (“This conduct mirrors prior violations[.]”).] 	Courts have
broad discretion under Rule 15(d) to allow supplemental pleadings. 	Keith v. Volpe, 858
F.2d 467, 473 (9th Cir. 1988). 	Given that the supplemental complaint makes the same
futile challenges as the initial complaint, the Court DENIES the motion. 	See LaSalvia v.
United Dairymen of Ariz., 804 F.2d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The purpose of Rule 15(d)
is to promote as complete an adjudication of the dispute between the parties as is
possible.”).
///
1 After seeking this extension, Plaintiff filed eight additional responses, nonetheless. [Doc. Nos. 13, 16,
17–22.]
Case 3:25-cv-02486-CAB-AHG Document 25 Filed 12/01/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 6

6
3:25-cv-2486-CAB-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IV. 	CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS with prejudice Defendants’ motion to dismiss and GRANTS
the motion to strike. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a supplemental
complaint and for an extension to respond to the order to show cause. The Clerk of Court
shall close this case and reject any additional filings by Plaintiff.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 1, 2025
Case 3:25-cv-02486-CAB-AHG Document 25 Filed 12/01/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 6