Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01423/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01423-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TANYA NEMCIK,

Petitioner,

v.

CONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT, et 

al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 16-cv-01423-SK 

REFERRAL FOR REASSIGNMENT 

AND REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

Regarding Docket Nos. 

Petitioner Tanya Nemcik, proceeding pro se, has filed this petition for writ of habeas 

corpus to challenge the custody determination made by the Contra Costa County Superior Court 

regarding two of her children. Petitioner has not consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate 

judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and, therefore, the Court does not have authority to make a 

dispositive ruling in this case. Accordingly, the Court orders that this case be REASSIGNED to a 

District Judge. Based on the facts alleged in the Complaint, the Court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS this 

action.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis 

complaint that lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Pratt v. Sumner, 807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 

1987). Even aside from Section 1915 review, the Court has an independent duty to ascertain its 

jurisdiction. Federal courts are under a duty to raise and decide issues of subject matter 

jurisdiction sua sponte at any time it appears subject matter jurisdiction may be lacking. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12; Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). If the Court 

determines that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court must dismiss the case. Id.; Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

The Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter because neither Petitioner nor her children are 

Case 3:16-cv-01423-CRB Document 20 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 4
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

“in custody” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2241. As the Supreme Court stated in Lehman v. 

Lycoming County Children’s Services Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 515-16 (1982), state court judgments 

concerning child custody matters are beyond the purview of habeas corpus. Lehman held that 

federal courts do not have jurisdiction in habeas corpus to determine parents’ right to custody of 

their minor children, even if it is alleged that custody was obtained by means that violate the 

Federal Constitution. Id.

Moreover, to the extent that Petitioner’s complaint does not sound in habeas, but could be 

read to challenge the state court custody orders pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court lacks 

jurisdiction over her claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., District of Columbia 

Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 487-87 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 

413, 415 (1923); Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 (9th Cir. 1995). Federal district courts, as 

courts of original jurisdiction, do not have subject matter jurisdiction to review errors allegedly 

committed by state courts. Rooker, 263 U.S. at 416 (“The jurisdiction possessed by the District 

Courts is strictly original.”); D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983) (“[A] United 

States District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial 

proceedings.”). Instead, the proper court to obtain review of a final state court decision is the 

United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257; Rooker, 263 U.S. at 416; Feldman, 460 U.S. 

at 476.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that district courts lack jurisdiction to review the 

final determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings. See, e.g., Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 

287, 291 (9th Cir. 1995). “The purpose of the doctrine is to protect state judgments from 

collateral federal attack. Because district courts lack power to hear direct appeals from state court 

decisions, they must decline jurisdiction whenever they are ‘in essence called upon to review the 

state court decision.’” Doe & Associates Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (citing Feldman, 460 U.S.at 482 n.16). Where “the district court must hold that the 

state court was wrong in order to find in favor of the plaintiff, the issues presented are inextricably 

intertwined.” Id. (citations omitted). In such a case, the district court must not exercise 

jurisdiction to review the ruling of a state court. 

Case 3:16-cv-01423-CRB Document 20 Filed 04/26/16 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Here, Petitioner is challenging the order issued by the Contra Costa Superior Court giving 

custody of two of her children to the children’s father. She contends that the Contra Costa 

Superior Court violated her constitutional rights. Because Petitioner is seeking to have this Court 

determine that the Contra Costa Superior Court erred, Plaintiff’s claims are barred under the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this matter be 

DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Court notes that in her request for a subpoena for medical testing and treatment, 

Petitioner included confidential and sensitive information regarding her minor children, including 

their medical records. (See Dkt No. 19.) The Court has provisionally sealed this document. If 

Petitioner wants to keep this information under seal, she may submit a supporting declaration and 

redacted version of this document by no later than May 5, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2016

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01423-CRB Document 20 Filed 04/26/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TANYA NEMCIK,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONTRA COSTA SUPERIOR COURT, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01423-SK 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on April 26, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Tanya Nemcik

3216 View Drive

Antioch, CA 94509 

Dated: April 26, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Melinda K. Lozenski, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable SALLIE KIM

Case 3:16-cv-01423-CRB Document 20 Filed 04/26/16 Page 4 of 4