(HC) E.F.C v. County of Sacramento ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 E.F.C., an individual Minor, through No. 2:23-cv-2683 KJN P JACQUELINE COLEMAN, 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND v. RECOMMENDATIONS 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Jacqueline Coleman filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 20 Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 21 the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 23 Jacqueline Coleman purports to bring this action on behalf of E.F.C., a minor. (ECF No. 24 1 at 6.) Ms. Coleman claims to be the guardian of the minor, despite the appended Sacramento 25 County Superior Court order stating that on September 14, 2016, Cynthia Cohen was appointed 26 temporary guardian of the minor child. (ECF No. 1 at 16.) Petitioner challenges the 2016 order, 27 claiming it was obtained through fraud. 28 //// 1 Screening 2 The court screens filings brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma pauperis. 3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The instant petition is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, 4 if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a 5 defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 6 Discussion 7 As noted, Ms. Coleman purports to bring this case on behalf of herself and her minor 8 child. As a self-represented litigant, Ms. Coleman can represent only herself. The Ninth Circuit 9 has clearly held that “a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child 10 without retaining a lawyer.” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997). 11 Thus, petitioner cannot bring this case on behalf of her child. She can only bring suit for legal 12 harms she suffered herself. 13 Moreover, the instant filing involves child custody issues. This Court lacks jurisdiction 14 over child custody claims because they are exclusively matters of state law. See Ankenbrandt v. 15 Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 702-704 (1992) (holding that the domestic relations exception to federal 16 subject matter jurisdiction “divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony and child 17 custody decrees.”). “Even when a federal question is presented, federal courts decline to hear 18 disputes which would deeply involve them in adjudicating domestic matters.” Thompson v. 19 Thompson, 798 F.2d 1547, 1558 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Tree Top v. Smith, 577 F.2d 519 (9th 20 Cir. 1978) (declining to exercise jurisdiction over habeas petition seeking custody of child who 21 had been adopted by others). 22 Further, to the extent petitioner is challenging the orders of the state court regarding 23 custody, she may not do so. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the final 24 determinations of state court dependency proceedings. See, e.g., Worldwide Church of God v. 25 McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The United States District Court . . . has no 26 authority to review the final determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings.”). The legal 27 doctrine known as Rooker-Feldman provides that a federal district court does not have subject- 28 matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the judgment of a state court. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. 1 |} Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283-84 (2005). Thus, petitioner’s claim that the state 2 || court’s 2016 order related to child custody was obtained through fraud is barred by the Rooker- 3 | Feldman doctrine. See Walton v. Hopper, 2022 WL 837268, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2022) 4 | (‘Child custody and parental rights are quintessentially state law matters that are generally 5 || outside the purview of the federal court.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 6 || 1506096 (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2022). 7 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; 9 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 10 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 12 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 13 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 14 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 15 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 16 || objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 17 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 18 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 | Dated: November 17, 2023 Aectl Aharon 21 KENDALL J.NE /cole2683.f¢ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28