Grimes et al v. Alameda County Social Services/Children Family Services

Filing 105

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION. Signed by Judge Alsup on October 18, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/18/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

CARL ANTHONY GRIMES, ANTONIO
GRIMES, and ANGELINA GRIMES,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

No. C 11-02977 WHA

ORDER DISMISSING
ACTION FOR LACK
OF SUBJECT-MATTER
JURISDICTION

v.
ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL
SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.
/

INTRODUCTION
This action challenges the termination of plaintiff’s parental rights. This order dismisses
the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
STATEMENT
Plaintiff Carl Anthony Grimes, who is proceeding pro se, purports to bring this action on

22

behalf of himself and his two minor children. His amended complaint, which was filed in

23

June 2011, is currently operative. The caption names “ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL

24

SERVICES/CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES” as defendants, and the pleading itself

25

identifies eleven individuals as defendants: six employees of the Alameda County Department of

26

Children and Family Services, four therapists, and one attorney. Plaintiff alleges that defendants

27

“us[ed] unconstitutional laws in Juvenile Court to rip [his] children away from their loving

28

parents!” (Amd. Compl. 11). Documents pertaining to the relevant dependency action in the

1

Hayward Juvenile Court division of the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda are

2

attached to the amended complaint.

3

To the extent plaintiff’s factual allegations are organized, they are organized by defendant,

4

and their chronology is impossible to discern. The primary factual bases for the action appear to

5

be the allegations that “Social Services removed my children from my home and care in violation

6

of my and my children’s constitutional amendments rights, Social Services refuse to return my

7

children to my custody, Terminated my Parental rights, [and] placed my children for adoption in

8

violation of my children’s amendments rights” [sic] (Amd. Compl. 5). Plaintiff also alleges that

9

the “reunification services” he received in conjunction with those proceedings “were unfair” in

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

several respects (id. at 6).
The operative complaint asserts seven claims for relief, each of which purports to identify

12

an alleged act that violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

13

Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Those alleged acts were as follows: (1) the

14

termination of plaintiff’s parental rights to Angelina Grimes; (2) the termination of plaintiff’s

15

parental rights to Antonio Grimes; (3) the removal of plaintiff’s children from his home without a

16

warrant; (4) the detention of plaintiff’s children “FOR NO VALID REASON”; (5) the use of

17

plaintiff’s arrest record as a reason not to return his children “in the absence of any conviction!”;

18

(6) the provision of “unfair reunification services, denying the father court order unsupervised

19

visitation!” [sic]; and (7) the refusal “to return the Children to their parents after completing

20

reunification Services” [sic] (id. at 12). The relief sought is “returning my children to my

21

custody” and “3.5 million and punitive damages regarding time separated from my children,

22

emotional distress and pain and suffering” (id. at 13).

23

Six motions to dismiss the complaint by six different defendants or groups of defendants

24

are pending. Plaintiff has filed ten memoranda opposing those motions. Many of the movants

25

have filed reply memoranda. This order follows consideration of all relevant briefing.

26
27
28

ANALYSIS
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine recognizes that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to
review alleged errors in state-court decisions. A federal court may not exercise jurisdiction over
2

1

“cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments

2

rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and

3

rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,

4

544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005).

judgments in that the federal claims “are inextricably intertwined with the state court’s decision

7

such that the adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling or require the

8

district court to interpret the application of state laws or procedural rules.” Reusser v. Wachovia

9

Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008). Such claims are barred “even where the party

10

does not directly challenge the merits of the state court’s decision but rather brings an indirect

11
For the Northern District of California

This jurisdictional bar extends to actions that are de facto appeals from state court

6

United States District Court

5

challenge based on constitutional principles.” Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 900–01 n.4

12

(9th Cir. 2003).

13

Plaintiff’s claims in this action are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Although the

14

operative complaint facially asserts constitutional claims, its substance challenges the state

15

court’s termination of plaintiff’s parental rights. Plaintiff seeks an order undercutting that

16

decision and related decisions by the state court. This district court lacks jurisdiction to review

17

those state-court decisions.

18

The documents attached to the operative complaint show that the relevant dependency

19

petition was filed with the Hayward Juvenile Court division of the Alameda County Court in

20

October 2008. Following that petition, the state juvenile court assumed exclusive jurisdiction

21

over custody and visitation of the children. CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE § 304; In re William T.,

22

172 Cal. App. 3d 790, 797–98 (1985). In California, termination of parental rights is carried out

23

by order of a state juvenile court after specific factual findings are made, including a finding that

24

reasonable reunification services were provided. CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE § 366.26; Angela S.

25

v. Superior Court of Mendocino Cnty., 36 Cal. App. 4th 758, 762 (1995). Thus, resolving

26

plaintiff’s claims regarding the termination of his parental rights, the fairness of his reunification

27
28
3

1

services, and the removal of his children from his home would require reviewing the state

2

juvenile court’s decisions in those matters. This district court lacks jurisdiction to undertake such

3

a review.

4

In opposing the motions to dismiss, plaintiff largely argues the merits of his case.

5

Regarding the jurisdictional issue, plaintiff states in one opposition brief: “I amended my

6

complaint July 5 2011, I’m not asking the Federal Court to return my children. Plaintiff being

7

aware of Federal Courts cannot review State Court rulings [Rooker-Feldman]” [sic] (Dkt. No. 31

8

at 6). Many of plaintiff’s other opposition briefs contain the same argument, with only slight

9

variation in the wording. Plaintiff emphasizes that he “is seeking an award for civil rights
violations” (Dkt. No. 44 at 4; Dkt. No. 45 at 3; Dkt. No. 54 at 2–3; Dkt. No. 60 at 2–4;

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Dkt. No. 66 at 2–4; Dkt. No. 82 at 2).

12

Plaintiff’s July 2011 motion for leave to file a second amended complaint was never

13

granted, and his proposed second amended complaint was never filed (Dkt. No. 18). The motion

14

was terminated upon reassignment of the action to the undersigned judge, and plaintiff never

15

re-noticed the motion for a hearing. Regardless of whether plaintiff’s amended complaint or

16

proposed second amended compliant is consulted, however, plaintiff is asking the federal court to

17

return his children. Both versions of the complaint contain the exact same request for relief: “I

18

pray the Court Grants relief returning my children to my custody and awards 3.5 million and

19

punitive damages regarding time separated from my children, emotional distress and pain and

20

suffering as punishment for the defendants intentional, malicious, discriminatory behavior. Note:

21

Request for attorney’s fees for the litigation of this suite” [sic] (Dkt. Nos. 4, 18). Plaintiff plainly

22

seeks an order “returning my children to my custody,” which would require overturning the state-

23

court order that terminated his parental rights.

24

Even if plaintiff were to abandon his request for the return of his children and instead

25

pursue only money damages, his claims still would require review of the relevant state-court

26

decisions. Such review is barred. Even though plaintiff nominally asserts claims for alleged civil

27

rights violations, his pleading is de facto an improper collateral attack on unfavorable state-court

28

rulings. See Bianchi, 334 F.3d at 900–01 n.4.
4

1

Plaintiff makes no other argument concerning the jurisdictional issue. This order finds

2

that this district court lacks jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s claims because doing so would require

3

reviewing state-court decisions. If plaintiff disagrees with decisions made by the state juvenile

4

court, then the proper recourse is appeal within the state court system — not collateral attack via a

5

federal court action.

6

CONCLUSION

7

For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

8

Because amendment of the pleadings would not cure the jurisdictional defect, leave to amend will

9

not be allowed. All hearings calendared for this matter are VACATED. The Clerk SHALL CLOSE
THE FILE.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

If plaintiff disagrees with decisions made by the state court, then the proper recourse is

appeal within the state court system — not collateral attack via a federal court action.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: October 18, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5