Safa Nabavi Noori v. Department of Children Family Services Orange County

Case 8:22-cv-00837-MWF-PD Document 5 Filed 04/26/22 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:22-cv00837-MWF-PD Date: April 26, 2022

Title Safa Nabavi Noori v Department of Children Family Services Orange

County

Present: The Honorable: Patricia Donahue, United States Magistrate Judge

Isabel Martinez N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A N/A

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why the

Magistrate Judge Should Not Recommend That

Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Be

Denied

Plaintiff Safa Nabavi Noori (“Plaintiff”) seeks to proceed in forma

pauperis (“IFP”) with a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant

Department of Children Family Services Orange County (“Defendant”). [Dkt.

Nos. 1, 2.] According to the Complaint, Plaintiff’s special needs son was

abducted in June 2014 by Defendant from “what was supposed to be a safe

location.” [Id. at 5.] Plaintiff alleges that without any evidence of child abuse

or neglect, his son was detained by Defendant and placed in a foster home for

eight years. [Id.] Despite Plaintiff’s efforts and relentless fight against

Defendant and the Orange County Juvenile and Dependency Court, his son

was kept away from him for eight years. [Id.]

Plaintiff alleges that he and his son were denied their constitutional

and First Amendment rights and are now seeking justice as victims of

misconduct and corruption by “organizations that openly violate innocent

people’s right[s] and follow no rules.” [Id.] Plaintiff alleges that to this day,

Defendant has “failed to determine the nature of abuse or neglect that I was

accused of without any cause [and] any evidence.” [Id.] Plaintiff alleges that

CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes – General Page 1 of 6

Case 8:22-cv-00837-MWF-PD Document 5 Filed 04/26/22 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:22-cv00837-MWF-PD Date: April 26, 2022

Title Safa Nabavi Noori v Department of Children Family Services Orange

County

the actions taken by Defendant show no regard for the law and due process,

and their false allegations have tarnished his reputation and ruined him

personally and financially. [Id.] Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached its

duties and failed to establish and follow the proper constitutional policies.

[Id. at 6.] Plaintiff seeks compensatory and statutory damages, along with

injunctive relief. [Id. at 3.]

A. Standard of Review

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a

complaint filed by a person proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915 is subject to a mandatory review and dismissal by the court

to the extent it is “frivolous, or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant immune

from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

In determining whether a complaint should be dismissed at screening,

the Court applies the same standard as applied in a motion to dismiss

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791

F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015). Under that standard, “a complaint must

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true” and viewed in the light

most favorable to the nonmoving party, “to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This does not require

“detailed factual allegations,” but it does require “more than an unadorned,

the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. The Court does not,

however, “accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted

deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State

Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). Because Plaintiff is proceeding

pro se, the Court construes the Complaint liberally. Barrett v. Belleque, 544

F.3d 1060, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes – General Page 2 of 6

Case 8:22-cv-00837-MWF-PD Document 5 Filed 04/26/22 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:22-cv00837-MWF-PD Date: April 26, 2022

Title Safa Nabavi Noori v Department of Children Family Services Orange

County

B. Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that a complaint contain a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual

allegations, at a minimum, a complaint must allege factual allegations to

provide “fair notice” of both the particular claim being asserted and “the

grounds upon which [the particular claim] rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp., 550

U.S. at 555 & n.3 (citation and quotation marks omitted). If a complaint does

not clearly and concisely set forth factual allegations sufficient to provide

defendants with notice of which defendant is being sued, on which theory,

and what relief is being sought against them, the complaint fails to comply

with Rule 8. See, e.g., McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th Cir.

1996) (a complaint must make clear “who is being sued, for what relief, and

on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery”); Exmundo v. Kane,

553 Fed. App’x 742, 743 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district court dismissal of

Section 1983 claims where plaintiff’s allegations “were unclear as to the

timing and nature of [the defendant’s] actions”).

1. Section 1983 Claims

To establish liability under Section 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate

that a defendant, while acting under color of state law, caused a deprivation

of the plaintiff’s federal rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,

48 (1988). Liability under section 1983 arises only upon a showing of

personal participation by the defendant. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045

(9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). There is no vicarious liability in Section

1983 lawsuits. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). Hence, a

government official – whether subordinate or supervisor – may be held liable

under Section 1983 only when his or her own actions have caused a

constitutional deprivation. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. Allegations regarding

Section 1983 causation “must be individualized and focus on the duties and

responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are

CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes – General Page 3 of 6

Case 8:22-cv-00837-MWF-PD Document 5 Filed 04/26/22 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:22-cv00837-MWF-PD Date: April 26, 2022

Title Safa Nabavi Noori v Department of Children Family Services Orange

County

alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844

F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).

2. Monell Claim

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to bring a Monell claim against

Defendant regarding the purported abduction and detainment of his son, he

has failed to state sufficient facts. In order to bring a § 1983 claim against a

local governmental entity, a plaintiff must allege that the execution of an

official policy or unofficial custom inflicted the injury of which the plaintiff

complains. Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S.

658, 694 (1978). The plaintiff must show: (1) the plaintiff was deprived of a

constitutional right; (2) the entity had a policy or custom; (3) the policy or

custom amounted to deliberate indifference to plaintiff's constitutional right;

and (4) the policy or custom was the moving force behind the constitutional

violation. Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations

and internal quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff has failed to allege non-conclusory facts plausibly suggesting

that a County policy, practice, or custom is the cause of—the “moving force”

behind—Plaintiff’s alleged constitutional injuries. See Monell, 436 U.S. at

690-91.

3. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

Further, it appears that this lawsuit is barred by the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine.1 Under this doctrine, “state court losers” are barred from pursuing

actions in federal court to undo the decisions of the state courts. Exxon Mobil

Corp. v. Saudi Basic Inds. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005); Gomez v. San

Diego Family Ct., 388 F. App’x 685 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming dismissal of

1 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine takes its name from Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S.

413 (1923) and District Court of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462

(2003).

CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes – General Page 4 of 6

Case 8:22-cv-00837-MWF-PD Document 5 Filed 04/26/22 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:22-cv00837-MWF-PD Date: April 26, 2022

Title Safa Nabavi Noori v Department of Children Family Services Orange

County

action challenging a state court child custody decision under the Rooker-

Feldman doctrine because the action was “a ‘forbidden de facto appeal’ of a

state court decision, and raise[d] constitutional claims that [were]

‘inextricably intertwined’ with that prior state court decision”) (quoting Noel

v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003)). Thus, where, as here, a

Plaintiff’s claims are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s decision

such that a ruling in the Plaintiff’s favor would undermine the state court’s

ruling, “the federal complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.” Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003). It is

immaterial that Plaintiff is not directly challenging the state court decision

but has framed his claim as a constitutional challenge in which he is seeking

relief from the decision. Id. at 901 n.4. As the Ninth Circuit explained in

Bianchi, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “bars federal adjudication of any suit

in which a plaintiff alleges an injury based on a state court judgment and

seeks relief from that judgment . . . .” Id.

Disputes over child custody, such as the state court proceedings at

issue here, fall squarely within the Rooker-Feldman bar. See, e.g., Moor v.

Cnty. of Butte, 547 Fed. App’x 826, 829 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of

suit concerning state court divorce and child custody proceedings on Rooker-

Feldman grounds); Sareen v. Sareen, 356 Fed. App’x 977 (9th Cir. 2009)

(affirming dismissal of action alleging constitutional violation in state court

child custody action on Rooker-Feldman grounds). Further, as long as the

state juvenile proceedings are still ongoing, they require federal abstention

under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971), to avoid federal interference

with ongoing state proceedings.

C. Order

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW

CAUSE why his IFP application should not be denied—and his complaint

accordingly dismissed—for failure to state actionable claims. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B). To discharge and satisfy this order, Plaintiff can either (1) file

CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes – General Page 5 of 6

Case 8:22-cv-00837-MWF-PD Document 5 Filed 04/26/22 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:22-cv00837-MWF-PD Date: April 26, 2022

Title Safa Nabavi Noori v Department of Children Family Services Orange

County

an amended complaint—entirely superseding the original Complaint—if he

can cure the factual and legal deficiencies outlined in the order, or (2)

voluntarily dismiss the action—without prejudice to refiling later if

justified—using the attached form CV-09. Otherwise, he can stand on the

original Complaint with no changes by filing a response with an explanation

why he thinks the reasoning in this Order is wrong.2 Plaintiff must do one of

these things by no later than May 9, 2022.

If, given the contents of this Order, Plaintiff elects not to proceed in

this action, he may expedite matters by signing and returning the attached

Notice of Dismissal by May 9, 2022 which will result in the voluntary

dismissal of this action without prejudice.

Plaintiff is cautioned that, absent further order of the Court,

his failure to timely file a First Amended Complaint or Notice of

Dismissal may result in the dismissal of this action with or without

prejudice on the grounds above or for failure to diligently prosecute.

Finally, the Clerk is directed to provide a Central District of

California Civil Rights Complaint Form, CV-66, to Plaintiff to

facilitate his filing of a First Amended Complaint if he elects to

proceed in that fashion.

:

Initials of Preparer im

2 Because it provides these options, this order is non-dispositive and thus not immediately

appealable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d

795, 799 (9th Cir. 1991).

CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes – General Page 6 of 6