Jasso-Martinez v. Lara ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 CLODUALDO JASSO-MARTINEZ, Case No. 3:24-CV-00351-ART-CLB 6 Plaintiff ORDER ON REPORT AND 7 v. RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE (ECF No. 6) 8 MARIA ELENA RODRIGUEZ LARA, et. al., 9 Defendants. 10 Plaintiff Clodualdo Jasso-Martinez commenced this action against Maria 11 Elena Rodriguez Lara, Martha Lucero Rodrigez Lara, Lois Fernando Rodrigez 12 Lara, and Tamatha Schreiner, alleging claims regarding his child custody 13 proceedings in state court. (ECF No. 1-1.) Plaintiff also filed two applications to 14 proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 1,4), and a motion to proceed with all 15 matters related to this claim, (ECF No. 5). 16 Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin issued a Report and Recommendation 17 (“R&R”), which recommended that Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma 18 pauperis be granted, Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice, and his 19 motion to proceed with all matters be denied as moot. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff filed 20 an objection to the R&R. (ECF No. 7.) 21 Plaintiff has also filed a motion for full custody of children (ECF No. 7), and 22 a motion for consideration as evidence where rights are again violated (ECF No. 23 14). 24 I. Review of Reports & Recommendations 25 Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a court “may accept, reject, or modify, 26 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by [a] magistrate 27 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s 28 1 report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo 2 determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which 3 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A court is not required to conduct “any 4 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. 5 Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). As Plaintiff has filed an objection to Judge 6 Baldwin’s R&R, the Court conducts review de novo. 7 II. Analysis 8 Judge Baldwin’s R&R recommended dismissal because the complaint 9 failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and because this Court 10 lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff’s objection apologizes for 11 his narrative and explains that he is representing himself. It does not address 12 Judge Baldwin’s analysis of subject matter jurisdiction. 13 The Court understands that self-representation is a difficult task, and that 14 courts must construe pro se complaints liberally. Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 15 1072, 1080 (9th Cir. 2016). However, even if the Court were to construe plaintiff’s 16 claim as a claim for custody of his children, the court lacks jurisdiction over such 17 matters. As Judge Baldwin’s R&R noted, federal courts do not have jurisdiction 18 over domestic relations disputes involving child custody. Ankenbrandt v. 19 Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 702. (1992); Peterson v. Babbitt, 708 F.2d 465, 466 (9th 20 Cir. 1983) (per curiam). Thus, child custody matters are to be adjudicated in state 21 courts. Peterson, 708 F.2d at 466. Because this Court lacks subject matter 22 jurisdiction over any claims Plaintiff asserts, the Court will adopt Judge Baldwin’s 23 analysis on that ground. The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without 24 prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because it does not appear that 25 amendment to the complaint would support subject matter jurisdiction, the 26 Court will dismiss without leave to amend as amendment would be futile. 27 Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court will also deny 28 Plaintiff’s other motions in this matter as moot. 1 III. Conclusion 2 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's objection to Judge Baldwin’s Report 3 || and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) is OVERRULED. 4 It is further ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation 5 || (ECF No. 6) is ADOPTED. 6 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs applications to proceed in forma 7 || pauperis (ECF Nos. 1, 4) are DENIED AS MOOT. 8 It is further ordered that the Clerk FILE the complaint (ECF No. 1-1.) 9 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be DISMISSED 10 || without prejudice but without leave to amend. 11 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's other motions (ECF Nos. 5, 7, 14) are 12 || DENIED AS MOOT. 13 14 Dated this day of November, 2024. 15 16 Ans jlasect en 17 ANNE R. TRAUM 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28