Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00429/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00429-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIEL McCAIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, JAMES WOOD,

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN AND HEALTH

SERVICES, CHILD PROTECTIVE

SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY

COUNSEL, COUNTY BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS, SOKA OM, and DOES 1

to 10,

Defendants.

CIV S-05-0429 MCE PAN PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

—NFN—

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or,

alternatively, to remand this action to the Sacramento County

Superior Court. This matter is scheduled for hearing before this

court April 27, 2005. As oral argument is unnecessary to resolve

this matter, I vacate the hearing and issue this order. 

Case 2:05-cv-00429-MCE -PAN Document 20 Filed 04/28/05 Page 1 of 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

2

On March 3, 2005, this court granted plaintiff’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis and directed her 

complaint be filed. The court construes plaintiff’s complaint as

seeking review of a state court decision removing plaintiff’s

daughter from her custody. 

Resolution of child custody issues lies only with the

laws of the states, as interpreted by the state courts. In re

Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-594 (1890); Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S.

415, 435 (1979) ; Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 124

S.Ct. 2301, 2309 (2004). Accordingly, plaintiff’s action herein

should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., the United States District

Judge assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Written

objections may be filed within ten days after being served with

these findings and recommendations. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The 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: April 26, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00429-MCE -PAN Document 20 Filed 04/28/05 Page 2 of 2