Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00045/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00045-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 444
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Welfare
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIZZIE McCAIN, No. CIV.S-05-0045 WBS DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v.

D.H.H.S. et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

____________________________/

This matter came before the court on May 20, 2005, for

hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Kyra Clark appeared on behalf of

defendants. There was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff, who is

proceeding pro se. Having considered all written materials submitted

in connection with the motion, and after hearing oral argument, for

the reasons explained below the undersigned will recommend that

defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted.

LEGAL STANDARDS

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed

Case 2:05-cv-00045-WBS-DAD Document 44 Filed 05/26/05 Page 1 of 5
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

1

 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on

January 7, 2005. She filed an amended complaint as a matter of

course on January 26, 2005. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

2

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. 

Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v.

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the

allegations of the complaint. Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp.

Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). Furthermore, the court must

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,

and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. See Jenkins v.

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

ANALYSIS

By prior order the court dismissed plaintiff’s amended

complaint1 with leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Plaintiff timely filed a second amended complaint. However,

defendants persuasively argue that the second amended complaint is

still deficient.

More specifically, the second amended complaint, like the

amended complaint, alleges no discernible claim for relief. The

second amended complaint only generally mentions “D.H.H.S. and C.P.S.

here in Sacramento, California[,]” which the court presumes is a

reference to Sacramento County’s Department of Health and Human

Case 2:05-cv-00045-WBS-DAD Document 44 Filed 05/26/05 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Services and Child Protective Services. (Second Am. Compl. at 2.) 

The second amended complaint attributes no particular conduct to

those agencies. Nor does the second amended complaint attribute any

specific acts to the two state government agencies in Arkansas that

it apparently refers to, “D.H.H.S. in Hempstead County Arkansas and

SCAN [in] Little Rock Arkansas.” (Second Am. Compl. at 2.) Thus,

like the amended complaint, the second amended complaint’s

allegations simply do not amount to a short plain statement of a

claim showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading

policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of

the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency,

733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff’s second amended

complaint is deficient in this regard.

The second amended complaint also does not set forth any

factual allegations giving rise to federal jurisdiction. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a)(1). The conclusory mention of “constitution[al] rights”

is insufficient in this regard. (Second Am. Compl. at 2.)

Moreover, just like the amended complaint, the second

amended complaint contains no clear prayer for relief. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a)(3). Thus, the court is unable to ascertain what

plaintiff seeks to accomplish with this action.

Finally, similar to the allegation in the amended complaint

that “we have a right to know why you are trying to separate our

grandchild from [her] maternal family” (Am. Compl. at 1), the second

amended complaint vaguely alludes to an apparent series of events

Case 2:05-cv-00045-WBS-DAD Document 44 Filed 05/26/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

involving plaintiff, her daughter, the County of Sacramento and an

attorney (Second Am. Compl. at 2). The second amended complaint 

alleges that the Department of Health and Human Services and Child

Protective Services caused plaintiff “mental stress” and slandered

plaintiff. (Second Am. Compl. at 2.) Nonetheless, as previously

observed by the undersigned, to the extent plaintiff is attempting to

challenge a state court child custody order, this court would almost

certainly lack jurisdiction. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S.

689, 703 (1992) (holding that domestic relations exception to federal

jurisdiction "divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce,

alimony, and child custody decrees"); D.C. Court of Appeals v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 & n. 16 (1983) (holding that district

courts do not have jurisdiction to review state court decisions or

claims "inextricably intertwined" with the merits of the state court

determination).

The undersigned noted nearly identical deficiencies in the

order dismissing plaintiff’s amended complaint. In that order,

plaintiff was forewarned that a failure to file a second amended

complaint complying with the court’s directives would likely result

in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. As noted above,

plaintiff’s second amended complaint is still deficient and the

undersigned finds that it fails to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted. Moreover, in light of the deficiencies cited above,

any further attempt to amend would be futile. See Reddy v. Litton

Industries, Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990); Rutman Wine Co.

v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Case 2:05-cv-00045-WBS-DAD Document 44 Filed 05/26/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s

second amended complaint be dismissed without further leave to amend.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty (20) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may

file written objections with the court. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 25, 2005.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\mccain0045.f&r.mtd

Case 2:05-cv-00045-WBS-DAD Document 44 Filed 05/26/05 Page 5 of 5