Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02591/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02591-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN SANDEEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANNE LIZARDO,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-2591 MCE CKD PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in propria persona. In this action, plaintiff names as 

the defendant his wife, who filed for divorce and child custody. Plaintiff complains of alleged 

errors that occurred in the divorce proceedings.1

A federal district court does not have jurisdiction to review errors in state court decisions 

in civil cases. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker 

v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923). “The district court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction either to conduct a direct review of a state court judgment or to scrutinize the state 

court’s application of various rules and procedures pertaining to the state case.” Samuel v. 

Michaud, 980 F. Supp. 1381, 1411-12 (D. Idaho 1996), aff’d, 129 F.3d 127 (9th Cir. 1997). See 

 

1

 Concurrent with the filing of the complaint, plaintiff also filed three motions for “declaratory 

relief.” The motions appear to be duplicative of the relief plaintiff seeks in his complaint and 

should accordingly be denied as improvidently brought. 

Case 2:16-cv-02591-MCE-CKD Document 8 Filed 11/08/16 Page 1 of 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

2

also Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291-92 (9th Cir.1995) (finding no subject matter jurisdiction 

over section 1983 claim seeking, inter alia, implicit reversal of state trial court action); MacKay v. 

Pfeil, 827 F.2d 540, 544-45 (9th Cir. 1987) (attacking state court judgment because substantive 

defense improper under Rooker-Feldman). That the federal district court action alleges the state 

court’s action was unconstitutional does not change the rule. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486. 

Moreover, claims raised in federal district court need not have been argued in the state judicial 

proceedings to be barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Id. at 483-84 & n.16. If federal 

claims are “inextricably intertwined” with a state court judgment, the federal court may not hear 

them. Id. “[T]he federal claim is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state court judgment if the 

federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it.” 

Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 25 (1987) (Marshall, J., concurring). In sum, “a state 

court’s application of its rules and procedures is unreviewable by a federal district court. The 

federal district court only has jurisdiction to hear general challenges to state rules or claims that 

are based on the investigation of a new case arising upon new facts.” Samuel, 980 F. Supp. at 

1412-13. 

Plaintiff alleges improprieties related to his marital dissolution proceedings and judicial 

orders related thereto. Plaintiff does not raise a general federal challenge to state law. See

Branson, 62 F. 3d at 292. Stripped to its essence, this action is one for federal court review of 

state court proceedings. The court finds the instant action amounts to an attempt to litigate in 

federal court matters that are inextricably intertwined with state court decisions. The court will 

therefore recommend this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 

Rooker-Feldman.

2

 

2

The domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction bolsters the conclusion that 

subject matter jurisdiction in this case is inappropriate. The domestic relations exception “divests 

the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony and child custody decrees.” Ankenbrandt v. 

Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992) (explaining domestic relations exception to diversity 

jurisdiction). “Even when a federal question is presented, federal courts decline to hear disputes 

which would deeply involve them in adjudicating domestic matters.” Thompson v. Thompson, 

798 F.2d 1547, 1558 (9th Cir. 1986), aff’d, 484 U.S. 174 (1988); see also Tree Top v. Smith, 577 

F.2d 519 (9th Cir. 1978) (declining to exercise jurisdiction over habeas petition seeking custody 

of child who had been adopted by others). In this circuit, federal courts refuse jurisdiction if the 

primary issue concerns child custody issues or the status of parent and child or husband and wife. 

Case 2:16-cv-02591-MCE-CKD Document 8 Filed 11/08/16 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions for declaratory relief (ECF Nos. 3, 4, 5) be denied without 

prejudice; and

2. This action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: November 8, 2016

4 sandeen2591.rf.57

 

See Coats v. Woods, 819 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1987); Csibi v. Fustos, 670 F.2d 134, 136-37 (9th 

Cir. 1982). 

In Coats, plaintiff, invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged that her ex-husband and others 

involved in state court proceedings had wrongfully deprived her of custody of her children. 

Defendants included the former husband and his current wife, their attorney, the court-appointed 

attorney for the children, a court-appointed psychologist, two court commissioners, two superior 

court judges, the county, the police department, and an organization called United Fathers. 

Plaintiff specifically alleged that defendants deprived her of child custody, thereby depriving her 

of a liberty interest, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(2), and 1985(3). Because the action 

at its core implicated domestic relations issues, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s 

decision to abstain from exercising jurisdiction. Like Coats, this case is at core a domestic 

relations dispute. See id. at 237. 

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-02591-MCE-CKD Document 8 Filed 11/08/16 Page 3 of 3