Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02429/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02429-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP MCCAIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2429 DFL JFM PS

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, ARKANSAS

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

ET AL.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. On September

28, 2006, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Plaintiff Contesting and Objection to Defendants

Made at Trial Welf Hearing Against the Defendants and Their Attorneys.” (Docket No. 27.) On

October 16, 2006, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Appellants and Defendants Additur and

Objection Against D,H,H,S. and Plaintiff and Respondents Remittitur.” (Docket No. 30.) It

appears plaintiff is attempting to file objections to or an appeal from a state court order. “The

appeal court procl[a]imed to be finalizing a hearing.” (October 16, 2006 filing at 2.) 

On November 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a document alleging that a social worker has

now forbidden him from visiting his granddaughter, Luna Cox McCain.

Plaintiff is advised that a litigant may not relitigate in federal court those issues

decided by a state court. "[I]ssues actually litigated in a state-court proceeding are entitled to the

same preclusive effect in a subsequent federal § 1983 suit as they enjoy in the courts of the State

where the judgment was rendered." Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. Of Ed., 465 U.S. 75, 83

Case 2:05-cv-02429-JKS-JFM Document 34 Filed 11/29/06 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

2

(1984). Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of a state court

judgment, even though the judgment may erroneously decide constitutional or federal law issues. 

Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 784 F.2d 1133, 1141 (2nd Cir 1196), rev'd on other grounds, 481

U.S. 1 (1987). "If the constitutional claims presented to a United States District Court are

inextricably intertwined" with the merits of a judgment rendered in a state court proceeding,

"then the District Court is in essence being called upon to review the state court decision. This

the District court may not do." District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,

483 n.16 (1983).

It appears plaintiff may be attempting to seek custody of or visitation with his

grandchildren. District courts will abstain from adjudicating domestic relations cases. See

Peterson v. Babbitt, 708 F.2d 465, 466 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam). Even if the case raised

constitutional issues, abstention is proper if the case, at its core, is a domestic relations or child

custody dispute. See Coats v. Woods, 819 F.2d 236, 237 (9th Cir. 1987)(In this circuit, federal

courts refuse jurisdiction if the primary issue concerns child custody issues.) Plaintiff may

pursue his constitutional claims in state court. See Coats, 819 F.2d at 237 ("[i]f the constitutional

claims in the case have independent merit, the state courts are competent to hear them");

Peterson, 708 F.2d at 466. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s

September 28, 2006, October 16, 2006 and November 3, 2006 filings will be placed in the court

file and disregarded.

DATED: November 29, 2006.

001; mccain.cuo

Case 2:05-cv-02429-JKS-JFM Document 34 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 2