Mankini v. Rea et al

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/2/2014 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 2 application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED without prejudice; and this action is DISMISSED. CASE CLOSED (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICKY PATRICK MANKINI,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-0679 KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

FRANCEEN REA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at the Solano County Jail, has filed an application to proceed

18

in forma pauperis and a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has

19

consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge for all purposes. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Local

20

Rule 305(a). (See Dkt. No. 4.)

21

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

22

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

23

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

24

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

25

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

26

A complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the

27

plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of a claim that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v.

28

King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957));
1

1

Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). Moreover,

2

“[a] district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.” Hartmann v. Cal.

3

Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013).

4

The complaint names as defendants two social workers and the Solano County Child

5

Welfare Services agency, against whom plaintiff challenges the termination of his parental rights.

6

Plaintiff asserts that defendants’ “reckless, false claims against me constituted libel, slander,

7

public humiliation, and extreme emotional distress.” (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff seeks damages, a

8

printed public apology, reprimand and demotion of the social workers. (Id.) Plaintiff states that

9

he has not pursued any administrative remedies, but that “this is my only form of a grievance in

10
11

this matter.” (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff’s claims – libel, slander and emotional distress -- are clearly grounded in state

12

law. Moreover, all matters concerning domestic relations, including issues of child custody, are

13

delegated exclusively to the state courts. Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S.

14

1, 12 (2004). Any constitutional claims premised on such matters are also within the exclusive

15

jurisdiction of the state courts. Peterson v. Babbitt, 708 F.2d 465, 466 (9th Cir. 1983) (per

16

curiam) (federal abstention); Coats v. Woods, 819 F.2d 236, 237 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S.

17

802 (1987) (same).

18

For these reasons, the undersigned finds that the complaint fails to state a claim upon

19

which a federal court can grant relief, and that amendment of the complaint would therefore be

20

futile. In addition, in deference to plaintiff’s limited finances, the court will deny without

21

prejudice plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application and will not assess a filing fee at this time.

22

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

23

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied without

24
25
26

prejudice; and
2. This action is dismissed.
Dated: April 2, 2014

27
28

mank0679.scrn.child.cust.

2