Flores v. The County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 6

ORDER BY JUDGE JEREMY FOGEL DENYING 1 REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. (jflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff seeks an emergency ex parte temporary restraining order and "order to show cause re preliminary injunction" to enjoin Defendants from transporting Plaintiff's minor child ("P.") to live with his father in New Mexico. On December 9, 2009, Judge Shawna Schwartz of
Case Number C 09-05836 JF (RS) ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 12/15/2009**

CARINA F. FLORES, Plaintiffs, v. THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, a municipality; THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, a municipal entity; Atty AVRIL VAZQUEZ, an individual; THUY TRAN, an individual; JUDY PATRICK, an individual; LESLIE SALMON, an individual; TRICIA SULLIVAN, an individual; LORI MEDINA, and individual; Atty MIGUEL MARQUEZ, an individual; WILL LIGHTBOURNE, an individual; RHODA AUSTIN, an individual and DOES 1 TO 100, Inclusive, Defendants.

Case Number C 09-05836 JF (RS) ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [re: docket no. 1]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the Santa Clara Superior Court determined that it was "safe' for P. to return to New Mexico under his father's care and supervision." P. Mot. at 3. Plaintiff requests expressly that this Court "review" the rulings of the state court. It is well-settled that federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to review state court rulings. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). The RookerFeldman doctrine bars "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). If Plaintiff wishes to contest the decision of the state court, she must seek relief from the state court of appeal. Accordingly, the request for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause will be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 15 2009

_____________________________ JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge

2
Case Number C 09-05836 JF (RS) ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(JFLC1)