Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01909/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01909-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHERI MANNING, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CPS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1909-TLN-KJN PS

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiffs Cheri Manning and Kenneth Muckelrath, who proceed in this action without 

counsel, requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 3.)1 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if it determines 

that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 

claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant.

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

 

1

This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1).

Case 2:15-cv-01909-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 09/15/15 Page 1 of 4
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

490 U.S. at 327.

To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions,” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the factual allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), 

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 

(1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear 

that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma 

pauperis is ordinarily entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before dismissal. See Noll 

v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1230 (9th 

Cir. 1984). Nevertheless, leave to amend need not be granted when further amendment would be 

futile. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Here, plaintiffs allege that child protective services (“CPS”) workers wrongfully took their 

5-year-old daughter pursuant to a purportedly unlawful warrant issued by a state court judge 

while plaintiff Cheri Manning was hospitalized for emergency medical care. According to 

plaintiffs, plaintiff Cheri Manning was tricked into signing certain documents in the hospital 

regarding “doing services,” and their daughter has not been returned to them because the 

“services” had not been completed. Plaintiffs assert unspecified claims against CPS, individual

CPS workers, and the state court judge. Plaintiffs seek $2,500,000.00 in damages and the return 

of their daughter. (See ECF Nos. 1, 2.) 

Case 2:15-cv-01909-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 09/15/15 Page 2 of 4
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

As an initial matter, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, because plaintiffs’

complaint does not appear to assert any federal claims, and there is no complete diversity of 

citizenship (with both plaintiffs and all defendants being citizens of California). 

Moreover, even if plaintiffs attempted to assert federal constitutional claims pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 or some other federal statute, it would be inappropriate for a federal court to 

interfere in this pending family law matter. See Coats v. Woods, 819 F.2d 236, 237 (9th Cir. 

1987) (no abuse of discretion in district court’s abstention from hearing § 1983 claims arising 

from a child custody dispute). As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals noted in Coats:

This case, while raising constitutional issues, is at its core a child 

custody dispute. The state courts have already considered the 

merits of Coats’ claims and have held that her former husband is 

entitled to custody. The district court was aptly reluctant to put 

itself in the position of having to review the state courts’ custody 

decision. If the constitutional claims in the case have independent 

merit, the state courts are competent to hear them. Given the state 

courts’ strong interest in domestic relations, we do not consider that 

the district court abused its discretion when it invoked the doctrine 

of abstention.

Coats, 819 F.2d at 237. For those same reasons, abstention is appropriate in this case. Plaintiffs’ 

proper recourse is to appeal or seek relief from the custody orders/decisions in the state appellate 

courts, and to pursue any related constitutional claims in the state courts.

Ordinarily, the court liberally grants a pro se plaintiff leave to amend. However, because 

the record shows that plaintiffs would be unable to cure the above-mentioned deficiencies through 

further amendment of the complaint, the court concludes that granting leave to amend in this case

would be futile.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The action be dismissed without leave to amend. 

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this court (ECF No. 3) be denied as 

moot.

3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

In light of these recommendations, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all pleading,

discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of these findings and 

Case 2:15-cv-01909-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 09/15/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

recommendations. Other than objections to the findings and recommendations or non-frivolous 

motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any pleadings or motions 

until the findings and recommendations are resolved.

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 (14) 

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.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. 

Dated: September 14, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-01909-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 09/15/15 Page 4 of 4