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)

Download PDF
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)).

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?