(PS) Yakovlev v. Superior Court of CA, County of El Dorado

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDR YAKOVLEV, Case No. 2:25-cv-03110-DJC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF EL DORADO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this suit against Defendants. The matter was 18 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 19 Local Rule 302. 20 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 21 On December 2, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 22 Recommendations herein which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice 23 to Plaintiff that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed 24 within fourteen days. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff has filed objections to the Findings and 25 Recommendations (ECF No. 10), which the Court has read and considered. 26 Having conducted a de novo review of the law in this action, the Court finds the 27 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper 28 analysis. In the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Miroth v. County of Trinity, 136 F.4th 1 1141 (9th Cir. 2025), the court reaffirmed the narrow scope of the Rooker-Feldman 2 doctrine. As stated by the court in Miroth, Rooker-Feldman does not preclude claims 3 that would not require a review of a judicial decision in a particular case and do not 4 seek relief from that judgment. Id. at 1151. Instead, the jurisdictional limit recognized 5 by this doctrine “applies only when the federal plaintiff both asserts as her injury legal 6 error or errors by the state court and seeks as her remedy relief from the state court 7 judgment.” Id. (emphasis in original) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 8 Having noted the limited scope of Rooker-Feldman, the Magistrate Judge was 9 correct in finding that it applies here. Plaintiff indisputably asserts claims based on the 10 state court’s vexatious litigant finding (ECF No. 5 ¶ 20), as well as other state court 11 judgments (id. ¶¶ 30, 33, 37, 40). Plaintiff also expressly seeks relief from the state 12 court judgment as a remedy; the First Amended Complaint requests declaratory 13 relief “. . . that Defendants' refusal to accept or docket Plaintiff's filings based on any 14 pre-2016 vexatious-litigant order . . . violates Plaintiff's rights . . .” and injunctive relief 15 “requiring Defendants to file Plaintiff's pleadings and prohibiting rejections based on 16 any pre-2016 vexatious-litigant order.” (Id. at 8.) Defendant argues that his claims are 17 “a broad, forward-looking assault on the Defendant courts’ entrenched customs and 18 practices[.]” (ECF No. 10 at 5.) But this is directly contradicted by the complaint as 19 identified in the Findings and Recommendations and here. 20 Accordingly, having conducted a de novo review of this case, the Court finds 21 the Magistrate Judge’s determination that dismissal of Plaintiff’s First Amended 22 Complaint is required by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is supported by the record and 23 proper analysis. 24 SUBSEQUENT FILINGS 25 During the pendency of the Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff has filed 26 a number of other documents. First, Plaintiff has filed three amended complaints. 27 (ECF Nos. 9, 13, 19.) These complaints were filed without leave of the court to do so. 28 They were thus improperly filed and need not be considered by the Court. Fed. R. 1 | Civ. P. 15. Moreover, based on the applicability of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the 2 | Magistrate Judge appropriately recommended that the operative complaint be 3 | dismissed without leave to amend. As such, the Court need not consider these 4 | amended complaints. 5 Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Recusal of the assigned Magistrate Judge 6 | (ECF No. 18) and a “Notice of Magistrate Judge Violation” (ECF No. 21) that the Court 7 || construes as a second motion seeking recusal. Given the Court's determination above 8 | that the Findings and Recommendations should be adopted, and this case dismissed 9 | with prejudice, Plaintiff's motions are moot. Nevertheless, the Court notes that 10 | Plaintiff's motions are without legal merit. Plaintiff has not identified any valid reason 11 | to reasonably question the impartiality of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's motions rest 12 | entirely on judicial actions and adverse findings in this case. The identified actions do 13 | not establish grounds to validly question the impartiality of the Magistrate Judge and 14 | do not provide a basis for recusal. See United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 15 | (9th Cir. 2010). 16 CONCLUSION 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. The December 2, 2025 Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 7) 19 are ADOPTED IN FULL. 20 2. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) is dismissed without 21 leave to amend. 22 3. All other motions (ECF No. 4, 6, 18, 21) are DENIED AS MOOT. 23 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 | Dated: _July 2, 2026 “Darl J Cob tto— Hon. Daniel alabretta 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28