Pronesti v. Department of Family Services et al
ORDER that 9 Motion for Leave to Amend is DENIED. Pronesti is cautioned that any further motions filed in this closed case will be summarily denied. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 4/12/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Department of Family Services, et al.,
Order Denying Motion to Amend
[ECF No. 9]
Pro se plaintiff Paolo Pronesti sued the Clark County District Attorney’s Office, the Clark
County Department of Child and Family Services (DFS), and a handful of DFS employees to
challenge state-court custody proceedings. On March 13, 2017, I adopted the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and dismissed and closed this case. Pronesti now seeks leave to file an amended
complaint, arguing that his claims arise under the Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983.
As I explained in my dismissal order, federal courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over
state courts,1 nor over child-custody matters.2 Because Pronesti’s claims constitute a de facto appeal
of the family court’s custody determination, I lack jurisdiction over his claims and the proposed
amended complaint does not cure this fatal defect. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Pronesti’s motion for leave to amend [ECF No. 9] is
DENIED. Pronesti is cautioned that any further motions filed in this closed case will be summarily
Dated this 12th day of April, 2017.
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge
ECF No. 3 (citing Rooker v. Fid Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482–86 (1983)).
Id. at 4 (citing Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992)).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?