Patil v. Clark

Filing 21

ORDER for Reassignment to a District Judge; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 5/9/2016. Clerk sent copies of Order/Report and Recommendation on 5/9/2016 via U.S. Mail to: Trupti Patil, 911 Visconti Place, Santa Clara, CA 95050-5260; Trupti Patil c/o Bob Dhillon, 2706 Peachwood Court, San Jose, CA 95132. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
TRUPTI PATIL,

12

Case No. 5:16-cv-01238-HRL

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A
DISTRICT JUDGE

v.

14

L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION

17
Plaintiff Trupti Patil initiated this action by filing a pleading concerning a family law

18
19

matter apparently pending in state court and seeking the recusal of a state court judge. Having

20

reviewed the allegations, this court concludes that plaintiff fails to assert any facts establishing

21

federal subject matter jurisdiction.1
Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, and a lack of jurisdiction is presumed unless the

22
23

party asserting jurisdiction establishes that it exists. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

24

America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225

25

(9th Cir. 1989). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the

26

court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

27
1

28

All other pending matters, including plaintiff’s request for permission to e-file (Dkt. 2) and John
Winchester’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 13) are deemed moot.

Patil complains of adverse rulings made in connection with child custody proceedings and

1
2

claims that the state court judge was biased. She requests that all orders issued by that judge be

3

“rescinded and the case reheard with ALL the evidence presented to a different judge.” (Dkt. 1 at

4

36). However, under the Rooker-Feldman2 doctrine, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the

5

final determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154

6

(9th Cir. 2003). Moreover, the domestic relations exception to federal subject matter jurisdiction

7

“divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony and child custody decrees.”

8

Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703, 112 S. Ct. 2206, 119 L.Ed.2d 468 (1992).

9

Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction and that

10

this case should be dismissed.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Because not all parties have consented to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, this court

12

ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a District Judge. The undersigned further

13

RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned judge dismiss this case for lack of federal subject matter

14

jurisdiction. Any party may serve and file objections to this Report and Recommendation within

15

fourteen days after being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: May 9, 2016

18
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2

28

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S.
462 (1983).
2

1
2

5:16-cv-01238-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Aimee Nicole Logan

[e-mail], [e-mail]

3
5:16-cv-01238-HRL Notice sent by U.S. Mail to:
4
5
6
7
8
9

Trupti Patil
911 Visconti Place
Santa Clara, CA 95050-5260
Trupti Patil
c/o Bob Dhillon
2706 Peachwood Court
San Jose, CA 95132

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3