Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01102/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01102-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TY LOPES, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1102 LEW KJM P

vs.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding with a civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. He has submitted an affidavit requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule

72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01102-JAM -KJM Document 6 Filed 11/06/07 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

2

The in forma pauperis statute permits federal district courts to

authorize the commencement, prosecution or

defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or

criminal . . . without prepayment of fees or security

therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that

includes a statement of all assets such prisoner

possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees

or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state

the nature of the action . . . and affiant’s belief that

the person is entitled to redress.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). A court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis if it appears from

the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152

F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 1998). The Ninth Circuit has held that an action is frivolous if it lacks

arguable substance in law and fact. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir.

1984). The court's determination of whether a complaint or claim is frivolous is based on “‘an

assessment of the substance of the claim presented, i.e., is there a factual and legal basis, of

constitutional dimension, for the asserted wrong, however inartfully pleaded.’” Id. at 1227

(citations omitted).

Plaintiff alleges that his daughter will not bring her children, his grandchildren, to

visit him in prison because of an order entered by the juvenile court, so he seeks an order

directing the defendants–the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency, a social worker from

that agency, and a lawyer–to tell his daughter that they may bring the children for a visit, as well

as damages. The attachments to the complaint show that plaintiff’s grandson, Dominik

Villaneuva, was made a ward of the juvenile court and that the court entered an order that applies

to both Dominik and Aaliah Villaneuva and reads in part:

No party to this agreement will allow visitation between the

minors and the maternal grandfather in prison.

Complaint, Attachment at 7.

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01102-JAM -KJM Document 6 Filed 11/06/07 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

3

In Miller v. State of California, 355 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2004), the Ninth

Circuit held:

[W]e see no basis for holding that the [plaintiffs] had a substantive

due process right to visit their grandchildren when those children

were dependents of the court, and CPS and the children’s

biological mother agreed that visitation should cease.

Plaintiff’s own pleadings show that Dominik is a dependent of the court and that

their mother stipulated to the order plaintiff now challenges. Accordingly, he has not shown

there is a legal basis of constitutional dimension to this action. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis be denied and the action be dismissed. 

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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 6, 2007. 

2

lope1102.56(6-8)

Case 2:07-cv-01102-JAM -KJM Document 6 Filed 11/06/07 Page 3 of 3