Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00363/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00363-2/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,

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant. 

 /

1:06-cv-00363-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 12)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff, Terrence Fisher (“plaintiff”), is proceeding pro

se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

Rule 72-302.

On March 1, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that recommended the court dismiss this action

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Findings and

Recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice to

plaintiff that any objections to the Findings and Recommendation

were to be filed within thirty (30) days. On March 7, 2007,

plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendation.

Case 1:06-cv-00363-AWI-DLB Document 16 Filed 05/15/07 Page 1 of 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

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendation to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

The objections do not provide any basis to not adopt the

Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff is correct that in

Kelson v. City of Springfield, 767 F.2d 651 (9th Cir. 1985), the

Ninth Circuit, in a case concerning the rights of parents whose

son had committed suicide, clearly stated that parents have a

fundamental constitutional right to association with their

children. However, the Supreme Court has found that federal

courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate claims arising from

custody disputes because “the domestic relations exception ...

divests the federal courts of power to issue ... child custody

decrees.” Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992).

“[C]hild custody problems ... [are] generally considered a state

law matter.” Peterson v. Babbit, 708 F.2d 465, 466 (9th

Cir.1983). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge correctly

recommended that this court not exercise jurisdiction in this

case because it involves the custody of minors. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed March 1, 2007,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00363-AWI-DLB Document 16 Filed 05/15/07 Page 2 of 2