Pronesti v. Department of Family Services et al

Filing 11

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)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Paolo Pronesti,

5

Plaintiff

2:15-cv-01994-JAD-PAL
6

v.

7

Department of Family Services, et al.,

8

Order Denying Motion to Amend
[ECF No. 9]

Defendants

9
10

Pro se plaintiff Paolo Pronesti sued the Clark County District Attorney’s Office, the Clark

11

County Department of Child and Family Services (DFS), and a handful of DFS employees to

12

challenge state-court custody proceedings. On March 13, 2017, I adopted the magistrate judge’s

13

recommendation and dismissed and closed this case. Pronesti now seeks leave to file an amended

14

complaint, arguing that his claims arise under the Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983.

15

As I explained in my dismissal order, federal courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over

16

state courts,1 nor over child-custody matters.2 Because Pronesti’s claims constitute a de facto appeal

17

of the family court’s custody determination, I lack jurisdiction over his claims and the proposed

18

amended complaint does not cure this fatal defect. Accordingly,

19

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Pronesti’s motion for leave to amend [ECF No. 9] is

20

DENIED. Pronesti is cautioned that any further motions filed in this closed case will be summarily

21

denied.

22

Dated this 12th day of April, 2017.

23

_________________________________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

1

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)).
2

Id. at 4 (citing Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992)).