Grimes v. San Mateo Human Services Agency et al

Filing 14

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Re 7 Service of Summons and Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CARL ANTHONY GRIMES,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 17-cv-02218-EMC
ORDER RE SERVICE OF SUMMONS
AND COMPLAINT

v.
SAN MATEO HUMAN SERVICES
AGENCY, et al.,

Docket No. 7

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Defendants.
12
13

In this case, the Court previously granted Plaintiff Carl Anthony Grimes’s motion for leave

14

to proceed in forma pauperis, but did not order the issuance of the summons or the service of the

15

complaint on Defendants. Docket No. 6. A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening

16

of any complaint filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis to ensure the complaint is not

17

frivolous, states a claim, and does not seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

18

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri

19

v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

20

Grimes asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on allegations that officials from the

21

San Mateo Human Services Agency fabricated evidence against in connection with a case

22

concerning Grimes’s custody of his children. His allegations are as follows: After an alleged

23

incident of domestic violence in January 2015, his children were removed from his home and

24

placed in protective custody by San Francisco social services. Compl. at 8. The children were

25

later returned to their mother’s custody, but Grimes was not permitted to be in contact with them.

26

Id. After the children’s godmother reported that the children’s mother remained in contact with

27

Grimes, a representative of San Francisco social services again removed the children from their

28

home on April 19, 2016. Id. at 9. The social services worker “began fabricating false evidence”

1
2

of domestic violence as part of the juvenile custody case. Id. at 9.
The case was transferred from San Francisco to San Mateo County on August 31, 2016.

report with the Brisbane Police Department alleging that Grimes had sexually abused his daughter.

5

Grimes contends that this report was fabricated for the purpose of influencing the juvenile custody

6

case in San Mateo County. Id. at 12. On November 21, 2016, San Mateo County social worker

7

Michael Sullivan, having spoken to Brisbane police and to the San Francisco social worker about

8

the allegations, filed a Disposition Report in San Mateo County Juvenile Court stating that

9

Grimes’s children could not be returned home due to the risk of sexual abuse. Id. at 12. The next

10

San Mateo social worker assigned to the case, Karla Stehl, similarly refused to allow any contact

11

between Grimes and his children because of the sexual abuse allegations. Grimes alleges that both

12
For the Northern District of California

After the case was transferred, On September 15, 2016, a San Francisco social worker filed a

4

United States District Court

3

Sullivan and Stehl “knowingly presented false allegations of sexual abuse against the plaintiff in

13

order to keep the plaintiff children under the supervision of the state, and prevent the plaintiff

14

children juvenile case from being dismissed.” Id. at 14.

15

Based on these allegations, Grimes asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of

16

his rights under the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. His claims under the Fourth and

17

Sixth Amendments appear frivolous. The Fourth Amendment claim appears to be based only on

18

an allegation that that Sullivan and Stehl presented false evidence “in an attempt to cause the arrest

19

of the plaintiff.” Compl. at 14. But Grimes specifically alleges that he was not arrested on the

20

basis of any of the sexual abuse allegations. Id. at 12. Accordingly, there appears to be no

21

unconstitutional seizure to provide a basis for this claim.

22

As to the Sixth Amendment, Grimes appears to claim that he was deprived of the

23

assistance of counsel in his juvenile custody case, purportedly in violation of California Welfare

24

and Institutions Code § 317.5. That claim is problematic for a number of reasons. First, the

25

California provision in question does not provide for an absolute right to counsel; rather, it

26

provides that those parties who are represented by counsel at dependency proceedings “shall be

27

entitled to competent counsel.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 317.5(a). Second, any state law

28

provision of counsel is irrelevant to whether Grimes’s Sixth Amendment right has been violated.
2

1

The Sixth Amendment only provides a right to counsel in “criminal prosecutions.” See, e.g.,

2

Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir. 2008). Grimes has not alleged that he was

3

deprived of counsel in any criminal proceeding. Accordingly, his Sixth Amendment claim likely

4

fails.1
With respect to Grimes’s Fourteenth Amendment claim as well as all other claims asserted

5
6

herein, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the doctrine of Younger v. Harris,

7

401 U.S. 37 (1971), as the relief sought would interfere with the ongoing state child custody

8

proceedings.2 In determining whether Younger abstention is proper, the Court considers three

9

factors: “(1) The nature of the state proceedings in order to determine whether the proceedings

determine whether there are ongoing state proceedings, and (3) the ability of the federal plaintiff to

12
For the Northern District of California

implicate important state interests, (2) the timing of the request for federal relief in order to

11

United States District Court

10

litigate its federal constitutional claims in the state proceedings.” Kenneally v. Lungren, 967 F.2d

13

329, 331 (9th Cir. 1992). Each of these factors weighs in favor of abstention here. First, there can

14

be little doubt that the state has an important interest in protecting children from sexual abuse and

15

in supervising those situations. Second, Grimes’s complaint makes clear that the state custody

16

proceedings are ongoing; he states that the allegedly fabricated allegations of sexual abuse “could

17

cause [his] parental rights to be terminated” in that proceeding. Compl. at 14. Finally, Grimes

18

offers no reason why he is not able to raise his allegations about the fabrication of evidence (or his

19

other federal constitutional rights) in the state proceedings. Thus, the interests in comity and

20

federalism protected by Younger dictate that the Court must abstain from exercising jurisdiction

21

over Grimes’s Fourteenth Amendment claim. See J.B. ex rel. Hart v. Valdez, 186 F.3d 1280, 1291

22

(10th Cir. 1999) (holding that Younger abstention was required when a state custody proceeding

23

was ongoing and the federal court’s exercise of jurisdiction risked “fundamentally changing the

24
25
26

1

Plaintiff has not raised a due process claim. Cf. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Servs. of Durham Cty,
N.C., 452 U.S. 18 (1981).
2

27
28

Both the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have held that Younger abstention applies in the
context of ongoing state administrative proceedings. Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n v. Dayton
Christian Sch., Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 627 (1986); Baffert v. California Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d
613, 617 (9th Cir. 2003).
3

1

dispositions and oversight of the children”); 31 Foster Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255, 1278

2

(11th Cir. 2003).

3
4
5

In sum, upon review of Plaintiff’s allegations, each of Grimes’s claims is DISMISSED
with prejudice. The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment and close the file.
This order disposes of Docket No. 7.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Dated: July 26, 2017

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4