Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00289/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00289-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL JAMES, No. CIV.S-05-0289 GEB DAD PS

Plaintiff,

ORDER AND

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THOMAS BLAIR, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

By order to show cause filed June 28, 2005, plaintiff, who

is proceeding pro se, was directed to show cause in writing why this

case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff filed the required response along with a request for

extension of time to further respond to the order to show cause

through counsel. Plaintiff represented at that time that an attorney

had agreed to represent him in this matter, although no substitution

of counsel had been submitted for the court’s approval.

By order filed August 3, 2005, the undersigned granted 

plaintiff’s request for extension of time, giving plaintiff an

Case 2:05-cv-00289-GEB-DAD Document 11 Filed 10/24/05 Page 1 of 5
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

additional thirty days to respond to the order to show cause

regarding the apparent lack of subject matter jurisdiction. However,

no further response to the order to show cause was filed.

On August 25, 2005, a state court form entitled

“Substitution of Attorney -- Civil” was filed. That form purported

to substitute attorney Moton Holt as plaintiff’s attorney of record.

However, that form was not submitted for the court’s approval and it

was not ordered approved by the court as required. See Local Rule

83-182(g). Mr. Holt also has made no appearance before the court

through which he might be considered plaintiff’s attorney of record. 

See Local Rule 83-182(a)(2). Finally, by letter to the court filed

August 31, 2005, Mr. Holt indicates that the substitution was filed

in error and that he does not have an attorney-client relationship

with plaintiff. In the letter Mr. Holt also accurately points out

that he is not admitted to practice in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of California. Thus, Mr. Holt is not

plaintiff’s attorney of record and it remains the case that plaintiff

is proceeding pro se in this matter.

As previously observed by the undersigned, the complaint in

this action indicates that plaintiff is suing various Nevada County

officials and other individuals in connection with the alleged sexual

assault of his daughter. The complaint expressly enumerates state

law causes of action for assault, battery, and intentional infliction

of emotional distress. It also contains more general allegations of

conspiracy and failure to comply with certain county regulations and

court orders. No basis for federal jurisdiction is alleged. Thus,

Case 2:05-cv-00289-GEB-DAD Document 11 Filed 10/24/05 Page 2 of 5
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

the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. It

would appear that plaintiff’s claims are more properly pursued in

state court.

Despite the court having granted plaintiff approximately

four months to address the subject matter jurisdiction issue, none of

the assorted documents plaintiff has filed with the court since

initiating this action indicate that this court has subject matter

jurisdicton over the action. Indeed, the initial response to the

order to show cause filed on July 14, 2005, indicates that this

matter concerns a child custody dispute in Placer County involving

plaintiff, his daughter and his daughter’s mother. To the extent

plaintiff is attempting to challenge a state court child custody

order, this court clearly lacks jurisdiction. See Ankenbrandt v.

Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992) (holding that domestic relations

exception to federal jurisdiction "divests the federal courts of

power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees"); D.C.

Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 & n.16 (1983)

(holding that district courts do not have jurisdiction to review

state court decisions or claims "inextricably intertwined" with the

merits of the state court determination). Further, plaintiff’s

conclusory assertion that he cannot receive fair treatment in Placer

County Superior Court because of his race is insufficient to

establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Settlemier v.

Sullivan, 97 U.S. 444, 448-49 (1878)(“We do not question the doctrine

that a court of general jurisdiction acting within the scope of its

authority -- that is, within the boundaries which the law assigns to

Case 2:05-cv-00289-GEB-DAD Document 11 Filed 10/24/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

it with respect to subjects and persons -- is presumed to act rightly

and to have jurisdiction to render the judgment it pronounces, until

the contrary appears.”).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The substitution of attorney filed on August 25, 2005,

is stricken from the record;

2. The “motion for request for a 90 day stay of

proceedings” filed by plaintiff on September 2, 2005, is denied; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of

this order and findings and recommendations on plaintiff at the

address listed on his complaint as well as attorney Moton Holt. The

Clerk also is directed to correct the docket to reflect that

plaintiff is proceeding in this matter pro se.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3)(“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or

otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter,

the court shall dismiss the action.”)

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)(1). Within twenty (20) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may

file written objections with the court. Such a 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

Case 2:05-cv-00289-GEB-DAD Document 11 Filed 10/24/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 20, 2005.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\james0289.order.f&r

Case 2:05-cv-00289-GEB-DAD Document 11 Filed 10/24/05 Page 5 of 5