Clark v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 51

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/22/2018 GRANTING 50 Motion to Continue. The parties shall disclose experts no later than 7/20/2018; The parties shall disclose any rebuttal experts no later than 7/27/2018; and This order does not alter any other deadlines set in this action. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FELICIA CLARK,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-1211 JAM DB PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was, therefore, referred to the
undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
On June 18, 2018, plaintiff filed a “Request.” (ECF No. 50.) Therein, plaintiff states that

20

“[s]ince bringing my lawsuit . . . CPS has removed my children[.]” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff recounts

21

the difficulty plaintiff has faced in bringing this issue to the attention of various entities. (Id. at 2-

22

3.) Plaintiff asks that: (1) “my cps case be moved out of the county’s hands out of family court

23

and into the Federal courts hands”; and (2) for “protective orders” to issue for plaintiff and her

24

minor children. (Id. at 2, 3.)

25

The defendants in this action, however, are park rangers with the Sacramento County

26

Parks Department. And this action does not involve Child Protective Services. Moreover, federal

27

courts do not have jurisdiction over state matters involving child custody. See Ankenbrandt v.

28

Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992) (holding that the domestic relations exception to federal
1

1

subject matter jurisdiction “divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony and child

2

custody decrees); Coats v. Woods, 819 F.2d 236, 237 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming abstention where

3

the case raised constitutional issues but was “at its core a child custody dispute”); Peterson v.

4

Babbitt, 708 F.2d 465, 466 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding abstention appropriate despite the presence of

5

constitutional issues where the plaintiff sought visitation with children who were wards of the

6

state court).
Plaintiff also seeks an order that defendants “hand over any and all evidence they are in

7
8

possession of” regarding this action. (ECF No. 50 at 4.) What plaintiff is referring to is known as

9

discovery. In order to conduct discovery, plaintiff will need to consult the Federal Rules of Civil

10

Procedure, and Local Rule 251. The undersigned cannot simply order defendants to turn over all

11

evidence.

12

Finally, plaintiff seeks “a 30 day continuance on all matters that were due to be filed” on

13

June 18, 2018. (ECF No. 50.) The only matter due to be filed on June 18, 2018, was plaintiff’s

14

disclosure of expert witnesses. (ECF No. 47 at 2.) Based on plaintiff’s pleading, and in light of

15

plaintiff’s pro se status, the undersigned finds good cause to grant plaintiff’s request. See

16

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Rule 16(b)’s ‘good

17

cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.”).

18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1. Plaintiff’s June 18, 2018 request to continue (ECF No. 50) is granted;

20

2. The parties shall disclose experts no later than July 20, 2018;

21

3. The parties shall disclose any rebuttal experts no later than July 27, 2018; and

22

4. This order does not alter any other deadlines set in this action.1

23

Dated: June 22, 2018

24
25
26
27
28

DLB:6DB\orders\orders.pro se\clark1211.eot.grnt.ord
1

Should defendants require an adjustment to the schedule set in this action as a result of this
alteration, defendants shall file a request for any modification needed.
2