Darling v. Gazzaniga et al

Filing 4

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/12/2017. RECOMMENDING that The action be dismissed without leave to amend; The 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be denied as moot; The Clerk of Court be directed t o close this case. ALSO ORDERING that all pleading, discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of these findings and recommendations. Other than objections to the findings and recommendations or non-frivolous motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any pleadings or motions until the findings and recommendations are resolved. referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

T.A. DARLING,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-01697-JAM-KJN (PS)

v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

SUZANNE GAZZANIGA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff T. A. Darling, who proceeds in this action without counsel,1 has requested leave

18

to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 1915, the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if it determines that the allegation of

20

poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief

21

may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant.

22

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

23

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th

24

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

25

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

26

490 U.S. at 327.

27
28

1

This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
1

1

To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “naked

2

assertions,” “labels and conclusions,” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of

3

action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). In other words,

4

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

5

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim

6

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A

7

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw

8

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.

9

at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted,

10

the court must accept the well-pled factual allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94

11

(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v.

12

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

13

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21

14

(1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear

15

that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma

16

pauperis is ordinarily entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before dismissal. See Noll

17

v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1230 (9th

18

Cir. 1984). Nevertheless, leave to amend need not be granted when further amendment would be

19

futile. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996).

20

Here, plaintiff attempts to brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Placer County

21

Court officials, and employees of the Department of Child Support Services, alleging that they

22

violated her constitutional rights, when enforcing child custody orders against her. (ECF No. 1.)

23

Child custody issues are family law matters, and it would be inappropriate for a federal court to

24

interfere in a pending family law matter. See Coats v. Woods, 819 F.2d 236, 237 (9th Cir. 1987)

25

(no abuse of discretion in district court’s abstention from hearing § 1983 claims arising from a

26

child custody dispute pending in state court). Family law disputes are domestic relations matters

27

traditionally within the domain of the state courts, and it is appropriate for federal district courts

28

to abstain from hearing such cases, which often involve continued judicial supervision by the
2

1

state. Coats, 819 F.2d at 237. If plaintiff truly believes that the superior court judge’s orders

2

were erroneous, the proper recourse is appeal of those orders in the state appellate courts—not the

3

filing of a new action in federal court.

4

Moreover, this matter is related to numerous other cases where T.A. Darling is either the

5

plaintiff or defendant. See Powell v. Darling, 2:16-CV-1047 MCE CKD (closed); Powell et al. v.

6

Department of Child Support Services et al., 2:16-CV-1197 TLN GGH (closed), Powell v.

7

Darling, 2:17-CV-392 KJM DB (closed); Powell v. Darling, 2:17-CV-1035 KJM CKD (closed);

8

Darlin v. Powell, 2:17-CV-1670 GEB KJN; Darling v. Powell, 2:17-CV-1692 TLN EFB; Darling

9

v. Powell, 2:17-CV-1723 KJM EFB. All of these cases relate to state court family law

10

proceedings, and many of them have already been closed.

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

12

1. The action be dismissed without leave to amend.

13

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this court (ECF No. 2) be denied as

14

moot.

15

3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

16

In light of these recommendations, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all pleading,

17

discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of these findings and

18

recommendations. Other than objections to the findings and recommendations or non-frivolous

19

motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any pleadings or motions

20

until the findings and recommendations are resolved.

21

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

22

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)

23

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

24

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

25

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

26

shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the

27

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

28

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th
3

1
2
3

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.
Dated: October 12, 2017

4
5
6
14/ps.17-1697.darling v. gazzaniga.IFP dismissal

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4