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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?