Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02918/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02918-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, all parties have

expressly consented that all proceedings in this matter may be heard and finally adjudicated

by the undersigned.

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

WILLIAM D. ANDREWS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JEFFERSON COUNTY COLORADO

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

DIVISION OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND

FAMILIES,

Defendant. /

Case No. C07-02918 HRL

ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS; AND (2)

DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

[Re: Docket Nos. 19, 22]

Pro se plaintiff, William Andrews, sues defendant Jefferson County, Colorado

Department of Human Services, Division of Children, Youth & Families (“County”) for

immediate custody of his children. He also requests that the court appoint counsel for him. The

County moves to dismiss the action. Although defendant’s motion papers were duly served on

plaintiff at his address of record, plaintiff failed to file an opposition and did not appear at the

motion hearing. Upon consideration of the moving papers, as well as the arguments presented

at the October 16, 2007 motion hearing, this court GRANTS the County’s motion to dismiss

and DENIES AS MOOT plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel.1

*E-FILED 10/16/2007*

Case 5:07-cv-02918-HRL Document 33 Filed 10/16/07 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 201, this court takes judicial notice of the papers on

file with the Colorado state court in the underlying custody proceedings, People v. Andrews, District Court, Jefferson County, Colorado, No. 04JV1269, that have been submitted by

defendant in support of its motion to dismiss. (See Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. A-1). Notice is

taken, not as to the truth of the matters asserted in that action or those documents, but to

establish the fact of those ongoing proceedings.

2

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises from a child custody dispute currently pending in Colorado state court.2

According to plaintiff, the County besmirched his character in an effort to keep him away from

his children. In essence, he claims that the County has denied his “fundamental and

constitutional right to the custody of [his] children.” (Complaint at 5). He filed the instant

action, seeking “immediate emergency return of my children to my custody,” as well as

“appropriate remuneration to my children and myself for denial and suppression of our family

rights.” (See id. at 17). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2), the County now

moves to dismiss the action. It contends that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and

personal jurisdiction. The County further argues that it is immune from suit under the Eleventh

Amendment.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“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.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). 

A lack of jurisdiction is presumed unless the party asserting jurisdiction establishes that it

exists. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (“It is to

be presumed that a cause lies outside [a federal court’s] limited jurisdiction and the burden of

establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction”) (citations omitted); see

also Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A federal

court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively

appears”).

“A jurisdictional challenge under Rule 12(b)(1) may be made either on the face of the

pleadings or by presenting extrinsic evidence.” Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328

F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000)). “‘In

Case 5:07-cv-02918-HRL Document 33 Filed 10/16/07 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

a facial attack, the challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a complaint are

insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction. By contrast, in a factual attack, the

challenger disputes the truth of the allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke

federal jurisdiction.’” Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Safe Air

for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004)). In a facial attack, all material

allegations of the complaint are presumed true, and the question for the court is whether the lack

of federal jurisdiction appears from the face of the pleading itself. Id. When a moving party

raises a factual challenge by presenting affidavits and other evidence, the party opposing the

motion must present affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing

subject matter jurisdiction. Id.

III. DISCUSSION

In this case, defendant argues that the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint are insufficient

on their face to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, whether subject matter jurisdiction

exists depends, not on the resolution of a factual dispute, but upon an examination of the

allegations in plaintiff’s complaint.

At their core, plaintiff’s claims present a child custody dispute. They are, therefore,

barred by the domestic relations exception to federal subject matter jurisdiction. The domestic

relations exception “divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony and child

custody decrees.” Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992). In the Ninth Circuit,

courts “traditionally decline to exercise jurisdiction in domestic relations cases when the core

issue involves the status of parent and child or husband and wife.” Coats v. Woods, 819 F.2d

236, 237 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Peterson v. Babbitt, 708 F.2d 465, 466 (9th Cir. 1983)

(same). “For that matter, the whole subject of domestic relations and particularly child custody

problems is generally considered a state law matter.” Peterson, 708 F.2d at 466. As explained

by the Ninth Circuit:

The strong state interest in domestic relations matters, the superior competence

of state courts in settling family disputes because regulation and supervision of

domestic relations within their borders is entrusted to the states, and the

possibility of incompatible federal and state court decrees in cases of continuing

judicial supervision by the state makes federal abstention in these cases

appropriate. True enough, the domestic relations exception has been narrowly

Case 5:07-cv-02918-HRL Document 33 Filed 10/16/07 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

confined. It is only in those cases most closely resembling historical

ecclesiastical actions that have been considered absolutely outside the federal

court jurisdiction. These cases consist of those where a federal court is asked to

grant a divorce or annulment, determine support payments, or award custody of

children. There is no subject matter jurisdiction over these types of domestic

disputes.

Id. (emphasis added and citations omitted).

Here, plaintiff essentially seeks to have this court award him custody of his children. 

This court finds that it has no authority to do so and, further, that the jurisdictional deficiencies

in plaintiff’s complaint cannot be resolved by amendment. Even assuming jurisdiction properly

was vested in this court, abstention would be appropriate in view of the ongoing child custody

proceedings in Colorado. If plaintiff’s constitutional claims have independent merit, the state

court in Colorado is competent to hear them. See Coats, 819 F.2d at 237; Peterson, 708 F.2d at

466.

Because it concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims (or that abstention

would be appropriate in any event), this court does not find it necessary to reach defendant’s

other asserted grounds for dismissal.

IV. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT defendant’s motion is granted and the

complaint is dismissed without leave to amend. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

counsel is denied as moot. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file.

Dated: 

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

October 16, 2007

Case 5:07-cv-02918-HRL Document 33 Filed 10/16/07 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

5:07-cv-2918 Notice electronically mailed to: 

Michael C. Serverian mserverian@rllss.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have

not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

5:07-cv-2918 Notice mailed to: 

William Andrews

932 College Drive

San Jose, CA 95128

Case 5:07-cv-02918-HRL Document 33 Filed 10/16/07 Page 5 of 5