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

> District Court, C.D. California · April 26, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9979709

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** April 26, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9979709

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9979709. Public record. Not legal advice.