Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01238/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01238-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TRUPTI PATIL,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:16-cv-01238-HRL

ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A 

DISTRICT JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT 

MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiff Trupti Patil initiated this action by filing a pleading concerning a family law 

matter apparently pending in state court and seeking the recusal of a state court judge. Having 

reviewed the allegations, this court concludes that plaintiff fails to assert any facts establishing 

federal subject matter jurisdiction.1

Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, and a lack of jurisdiction is presumed unless the 

party asserting jurisdiction establishes that it exists. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 

America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 

(9th Cir. 1989). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the 

court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

 

1 All other pending matters, including plaintiff’s request for permission to e-file (Dkt. 2) and John 

Winchester’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 13) are deemed moot.

Case 5:16-cv-01238-EJD Document 21 Filed 05/09/16 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

Patil complains of adverse rulings made in connection with child custody proceedings and 

claims that the state court judge was biased. She requests that all orders issued by that judge be 

“rescinded and the case reheard with ALL the evidence presented to a different judge.” (Dkt. 1 at 

36). However, under the Rooker-Feldman2doctrine, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the 

final determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 

(9th Cir. 2003). Moreover, the domestic relations exception to federal subject matter jurisdiction 

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

Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703, 112 S. Ct. 2206, 119 L.Ed.2d 468 (1992). 

Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction and that 

this case should be dismissed.

Because not all parties have consented to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, this court 

ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a District Judge. The undersigned further 

RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned judge dismiss this case for lack of federal subject matter 

jurisdiction. Any party may serve and file objections to this Report and Recommendation within 

fourteen days after being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2016

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

 

2 Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 

462 (1983).

Case 5:16-cv-01238-EJD Document 21 Filed 05/09/16 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

5:16-cv-01238-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Aimee Nicole Logan aimee.logan@cco.sccgov.org, cathy.grijalva@cco.sccgov.org

5:16-cv-01238-HRL Notice sent by U.S. Mail to:

Trupti Patil

911 Visconti Place

Santa Clara, CA 95050-5260

Trupti Patil

c/o Bob Dhillon

2706 Peachwood Court

San Jose, CA 95132

Case 5:16-cv-01238-EJD Document 21 Filed 05/09/16 Page 3 of 3