Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04078/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04078-0/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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JENARIUS THURMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SABRINA WILBURN,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-04078-BLF 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; DENYING 

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY CHANGE 

OF CUSTODY; AND DISMISSING 

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

[Re: ECF 1, 2, 5, 6]

This order addresses the following filings of Plaintiff Jenarius Thurman: Notice of 

Removal (ECF 1); Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF 2); Motion for Emergency 

Change of Custody (ECF 5); and Amended Complaint or Correction (ECF 6). For the reasons 

discussed below, the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE; the Motion for Emergency Change of Custody is DENIED; and the Amended 

Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

On July 20, 2016, Thurman filed a Notice of Removal that appeared to be intended to 

remove an Illinois state court child custody proceeding to the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California. Notice of Removal, ECF 1. If that was Thurman’s intent, the 

Notice of Removal is defective in that it does not contain “a short and plain statement of the 

grounds for removal, together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon” 

Thurman in the state court action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Moreover, when a state court action 

is removable, it may be removed “to the district court of the United States for the district and 

division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Thus any 

Case 5:16-cv-04078-BLF Document 7 Filed 08/09/16 Page 1 of 3
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

attempt to remove an Illinois state court proceeding to this Court would be improper. 

On August 8, 2016, Thurman filed a single-page document titled “Amended Complaint or 

Correction,” stating that Thurman is the Petitioner in the present action and Sabrina Wilbon1the 

Respondent, while in the state court action Wilbon is the Petitioner and Thurman the Respondent. 

Am’d Compl. or Correction, ECF 6. The fact that Thurman titled this document “Amended 

Complaint or Correction” suggests that he may have intended to file a complaint in this Court 

rather than removing an existing state court action. Id. However, the Amended Complaint or 

Correction does not contain any substantive allegations. Id.

In conjunction with filing the Notice of Removal, Thurman filed an Application to Proceed 

In Forma Pauperis. See IFP Applic., ECF 2. “A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is 

frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 

1987). After reviewing both the Notice of Removal and the Amended Complaint or Correction, 

the Court cannot determine what claim Thurman is attempting to allege. It appears that Thurman 

may be seeking review of custody orders issued by the Illinois state courts. Under the RookerFeldman doctrine, a federal district court has no authority to review the final determinations of a 

state court in judicial proceedings. See Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 

462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). Because it appears 

from the face of Thurman’s pleadings that the action has no merit, his Application to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis is DENIED, and his pleadings are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

Thurman may file an amended complaint, setting forth “a short and plain statement of the grounds 

for the court’s jurisdiction” and “a short and plain statement of the claim” showing that he is

entitled to relief, on or before August 31, 2016. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

On August 5, 2016, Thurman filed a Motion for Emergency Change of Custody. As 

discussed above, Thurman has failed to allege a viable claim, and this Court lacks authority to 

 

1

The filings in this case spell Defendant’s name several different ways: “Wilbon,” “Wilbun,” and 

“Wilburn.” This order uses the name “Wilbon,” which is taken from Thurman’s most recent 

filing, the Amended Complaint or Correction. See Am’d Compl. or Correction, ECF 6.

Case 5:16-cv-04078-BLF Document 7 Filed 08/09/16 Page 2 of 3
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

review a final custody order of a state court. Thurman’s Motion for Emergency Change of 

Custody is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04078-BLF Document 7 Filed 08/09/16 Page 3 of 3