Reported / Citable
Background
Kostiantyn Mars, proceeding pro se, sought to proceed without prepaying fees and attempted to remove several California state matters—including criminal, family-law, custody, name-change, and wage-garnishment proceedings—to the Western District of Texas. He also brought federal RICO and Section 1983 claims against California, its governor, the Santa Clara County Superior Court, several California judges, his ex-wife, and a purported DCSS official.
Mars alleged a coordinated racketeering enterprise operating under California authority and connected to the Ukrainian mafia. He claimed the enterprise led to the abduction of his son, extortion of his retirement funds, fabricated criminal charges, and unlawful arrests. He also sought removal from a California vexatious-litigant list.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Mark Lane granted Mars leave to proceed in forma pauperis. But the judge recommended that the district court dismiss without prejudice the purportedly removed California cases because removal must be filed in the federal district and division embracing the state court where the action is pending, not in the Western District of Texas.
The magistrate judge further recommended dismissing the RICO complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The complaint did not state viable factual claims against the named defendants; California and its governor were protected by sovereign immunity, the California judges were protected by absolute judicial immunity for alleged judicial acts, and the Santa Clara County Superior Court was not a suable entity. The court also found venue improper because Mars alleged neither that defendants resided in Texas nor that relevant events occurred there.
Key Takeaways
- An indigent litigant may receive in forma pauperis status even when the complaint is subject to immediate screening and dismissal.
- State actions may be removed only to the federal district and division encompassing the state court where they are pending.
- Conclusory RICO allegations cannot overcome sovereign immunity, judicial immunity, or pleading deficiencies.
Why It Matters
This is a report and recommendation, not a final district-court dismissal. The parties had 14 days to object, and the district judge retained responsibility for deciding whether to adopt the recommendations.
The magistrate judge also warned Mars that continued frivolous filings in the Western District of Texas could result in additional sanctions, including a district-wide prefiling bar.