courts “traditionally decline to exercise jurisdiction in domestic relations cases when the core issue 27 involves the status of parent and child or husband and wife.”
How later courts described this case
- courts “traditionally decline to exercise jurisdiction in domestic relations cases when the core issue 27 involves the status of parent and child or husband and wife.”
- a municipal entity or 25 its departments is liable under section 1983 only if a plaintiff shows that her constitutional injury 26 was caused by employees acting pursuant to the municipality’s policy or custom
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 KRISTY BERGUM, No. 2:19-cv-58-TLN-EFB PS
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY DHHS
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES;
15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA; PARENT ADVOCATES
16 OF SACRAMENTO,
17 Defendants.
18
19 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.1 Her
20 declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No. 2.
21 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
22 Determining that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required
23 inquiry. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it determines the
24 allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on
25 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. As discussed
26 below, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim and must be dismissed.
27
1 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the
28 undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
2 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it
3 fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.
4 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41
5 (1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of
6 his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
7 a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
8 relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are
9 true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable
10 legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories.
11 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
12 Under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in
13 question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the
14 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor,
15 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy the pleading
16 requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a
17 complaint to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
18 to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon
19 which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).
20 Here, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon with relief may be granted.
21 Although the complaint’s allegations span only six pages, they are unfocused and poorly
22 developed, making it difficult to discern the factual and legal basis for her claim(s). Plaintiff
23 begins by alleging that social workers visited her while she was in the hospital. ECF No. 1 at 3.
24 She claims that she was forced to sign some paperwork while medicated and that social workers
25 somehow unlawfully questioned her eldest daughter outside her presence. Id. Plaintiff next
26 alleges that her daughter was removed from her care and placed in foster care in Sacramento,
27 despite plaintiff living in Yuba County. She also complains that the Sacramento Superior Court
28 refused to transfer the child custody case to the Yuba County Superior Court. Id. at 3. On the
1 following page, plaintiff discusses her difficulty finding housing, one of her daughters being
2 hospitalized due to emotional issues, and social workers’ refusal to arrange transportation for
3 plaintiff to visit her son in juvenile hall. Id. at 4. Elsewhere, she claims that social workers
4 refused to scheduled visitations with her children at appropriate times and would not provide
5 transportation for these visits. Id. at 5-6. She also describes how social workers hindered her
6 ability to obtain a Section 8 voucher, which has caused plaintiff financial difficulties. Id. at 7-8.
7 It is not clear from plaintiff’s allegation what claim she is attempting to assert. The
8 complaint does not identify any specific cause of action, nor does it identify the specific statute
9 defendant purportedly violated, leaving the court the guess as to her intended claim(s). Plaintiff
10 might be attempting to allege a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of her Fourteenth
11 Amendment right to familial association. If so, she has yet to state such a claim. The right to
12 familial associations has both a procedural and substantive component. Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d
13 1228, 1236 (9th Cir. 2018). “While the right is a fundamental liberty interest, official may
14 interfere with the right if they provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.” Id.
15 (citations and quotations omitted). The right to familial association is violated where “a state
16 official removes children from their parents without their consent, and without a court order,
17 unless information at the time of the seizure, after reasonable investigation, establishes reasonable
18 cause to believe that the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury, and the scope,
19 degree, and duration of the intrusion are reasonably necessary to avert the specific injury at
20 issue.” Id. at 1237-38.
21 Plaintiff’s allegations do not demonstrate that any of her children were improperly
22 removed from her custody. Furthermore, as to any claim against the county, she does not allege
23 that any of the social worker’s alleged conduct was performed pursuant to a policy or custom.
24 Villegas v. Gilroy Garlic Festival Ass’n, 541 F.3d 950, 964 (9th Cir. 2008) (a municipal entity or
25 its departments is liable under section 1983 only if a plaintiff shows that her constitutional injury
26 was caused by employees acting pursuant to the municipality’s policy or custom). Consequently,
27 plaintiff fails to state a § 1983 claim against defendants.
28 /////
1 Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed with leave to amend.2 Plaintiff is
2 granted leave to file an amended complaint, if he can allege a cognizable legal theory against a
3 proper defendant and sufficient facts in support of that cognizable legal theory. Lopez v. Smith,
4 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must afford pro se litigants an
5 opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints). Should plaintiff choose to
6 file an amended complaint, the amended complaint shall clearly set forth the allegations against
7 defendant and shall specify a basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Any amended
8 complaint shall plead plaintiff’s claims in “numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as
9 practicable to a single set of circumstances,” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
10 10(b), and shall be in double-spaced text on paper that bears line numbers in the left margin, as
11 required by Eastern District of California Local Rules 130(b) and 130(c). Any amended
12 complaint shall also use clear headings to delineate each claim alleged and against which
13 defendant or defendants the claim is alleged, as required by Rule 10(b), and must plead clear facts
14 that support each claim under each header.
15 Additionally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to
16 make an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be
17 complete in itself. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the
18 original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Accordingly, once
19 plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original no longer serves any function in the case.
20 Therefore, “a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not
21 alleged in the amended complaint,” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir.
22
2 Plaintiff has also filed requests for the court to hold an emergency hearing, arguing that
23 defendants “are trying to adopt my children out.” ECF Nos. 4 & 5. Because plaintiff’s complaint
must be dismissed for failure to state a claim, there is no basis for hold such a hearing.
24 Furthermore, as a general principle, this court lacks jurisdiction over matters involving adoption
pursuant to the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction, which “divests the federal
25
courts of power to issue divorce, alimony and child custody decrees.” Ankenbrandt v. Richards,
26 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992); see also Coats v. Woods, 819 F.2d 236, 237 (9th Cir. 1987) (courts
“traditionally decline to exercise jurisdiction in domestic relations cases when the core issue
27 involves the status of parent and child or husband and wife.”). Rather, challenges under state law
to rulings by the county superior court must be directed to the California District Court of
28 Appeals.
1 | 1981), and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. Ferdik v.
2 | Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to
3 || comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order
4 || may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110.
5 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
6 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.
7 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, as provided herein.
8 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended
9 | complaint. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must
10 || be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to timely file an amended complaint in
11 || accordance with this order will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed.
12 4. Plaintiff's requests for an emergency hearing (ECF Nos. 4 & 5) are denied.
13 | DATED: February 19, 2020.
14 tid, PDEA
1s EDMUND F. BRENNAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28