Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00363/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00363-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRENCE FISHER, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

CV F 06 0363 AWI DLB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING COMPLAINT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR DEFAULT

[Doc. 11]

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant complaint on March

31, 2006. Plaintiff names the State of California as Defendant and asserts claims involving the

custody of his children Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. 

On February 9, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default against the State of

California. Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY DENIED. As discussed below, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an initial screening of the complaint prior to ordering

service. The Court has not yet determined that the complaint state s a cognizable claim for relief

and therefore has not yet ordered service. Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default is therefore

denied. 

Case 1:06-cv-00363-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 03/01/07 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

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the

complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof

if the court determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state

a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be

cured by amendment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, 

cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has

jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a

demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of

several different types may be demanded.

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair

notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev.

Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of

particularity overt acts which the defendants engaged in that support Plaintiff's claim. Id. 

Although a complaint need not outline all elements of a claim, it must be possible to infer from

the allegations that all elements exist and that there is entitlement to relief under some viable

legal theory. Walker v. South Cent. Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1990);

Lewis v. ACB Business Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-06 (6th Cir. 1998).

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations

of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick

v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

Case 1:06-cv-00363-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 03/01/07 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

B. Discussion

Much of Plaintiff’s complaint concerns the custody of his children. It appears plaintiff

contests the custody arrangement awarded by the Kern County Superior Court. Plaintiff

contends the Judges made unlawful orders and the attorneys lied. 

Federal courts are to decline jurisdiction of cases concerning domestic relations. See,

e.g., In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94, 10 S.Ct. 850, 852-53 (1890); Peterson v. Babbitt, 708

F.2d 465, 466 (9th Cir.1983). 

Plaintiff’s complaint has numerous problems, including jurisdictional problems and 

immunity issues. Plaintiff also provides little more than conclusory statements in support of his

vague discrimination claims. 

Most importantly, the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits

brought against an unconsenting state. Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Co., 951 F.2d

1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted); see also Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 116

S.Ct. 1114, 1122 (1996); Puerto Rico Aqueduct Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S.

139, 144 (1993); Austin v. State Indus. Ins. Sys., 939 F.2d 676, 677 (9th Cir. 1991). The

Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies as well as those where the state itself is

named as a defendant. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. California Dep’t of Tranp., 96

F.3d 420, 421 (9th Cir. 1996); Brook, 951 F.2d at 1053; Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th

Cir. 1989) (concluding that Nevada Department of Prisons was a state agency entitled to

Eleventh Amendment immunity); Mitchell v. Los Angeles Community College Dist., 861 F.2d

198, 201 (9th Cir. 1989). The State of California, the only named defendant in this action, is

therefore immune from suit. 

In addition, Federal courts are to decline jurisdiction of cases concerning domestic

relations. See, e.g., In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94, 10 S.Ct. 850, 852-53 (1890); Peterson v.

Babbitt, 708 F.2d 465, 466 (9th Cir.1983). 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 

Case 1:06-cv-00363-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 03/01/07 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

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii

pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after being

served with these Findings and Recommendation, 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 the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 28, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00363-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 03/01/07 Page 4 of 4