Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06954/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06954-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHELLE CHAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARYELA PADILLA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-06954-MMC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS; DISMISSING 

PETITION; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

Re: Dkt. No. 2, 5

Before the Court is plaintiff Michelle Chan's "Application to Proceed in Forma 

Pauperis," filed December 2, 2016. Having read and considered the application, the 

Court finds plaintiff has shown an inability to pay the fees to institute the instant action, 

and, accordingly, the application is hereby GRANTED.

Where a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the district court must dismiss the 

action if the court determines the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can 

be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Here, plaintiff initiated the instant action

by filing a document titled "Emergency Domestic Violence Ex Parte and Order of 

Protection for Mother and Child," which document plaintiff refers to, and the Court 

construes as, a petition for relief. In her petition, plaintiff states that the San Francisco 

Superior Court has issued an order granting her husband full custody of their child. She 

seeks from this Court an order vacating the state court's custody order, an order granting 

her custody of the child, and an order requiring her husband to provide her with spousal 

and child support.

Federal district courts lack power to review orders issued by a state court. See

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 

Case 3:16-cv-06954-MMC Document 6 Filed 12/06/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

296-97 (1970) (vacating district court order enjoining enforcement of state court order; 

holding “lower federal courts possess no power whatever to sit in direct review of state 

court decisions"). Similarly, federal district courts lack power to "award custody of 

children" or "determine support payments." See Peterson v. Babbitt, 708 F.2d 465, 466 

(9th Cir. 1983).

Accordingly, the petition is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to plaintiff 

seeking relief in state court.

The Clerk of Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-06954-MMC Document 6 Filed 12/06/16 Page 2 of 2