Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02720/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02720-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICOLE WILSON BILLINGS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF OAKLAND,

Defendant. /

No. C07-02720 MJJ

ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND REQUEST

FOR STAY

On May 23, 2007, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in this matter,

apparently naming as defendants the City of Oakland, Alameda County, the State of California, and

“All City County and State Federal Authorities.” (Docket No. 1.) Accompanying Plaintiff’s

complaint is a “Motion for Appeal and 180 Stay” (Docket No. 4) as well as a proposed form of an

injunction (Docket No. 3), in which she seeks a 180-day stay in the form of “an injunction to

stopping pursuing in superior court of California for the termination of my parental rights” over her

son William. Plaintiff apparently contends that employees of the state’s Child Protective Service

have engaged in improper conduct in connection with the state court proceedings, including

threatening to sever her parental rights in connection with inappropriate sexual advances. 

From the context of allegations contained in these papers, this Court construes Plaintiffs’

filings as a request, in part, for temporary injunctive relief, although Plaintiff does not explicitly

state that she seeks relief of this form. To obtain temporary injunctive relief, Plaintiff must show:

(1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to Plaintiff if

Case 3:07-cv-02720-MJJ Document 9 Filed 05/23/07 Page 1 of 2
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

preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring Plaintiff, and (4) advancement

of the public interest. See Rodde v. Bonta, 357 F.3d 988, 994 (9th Cir. 2004). Alternatively, the

Court may grant injunctive relief if the plaintiff merely “demonstrate[s] . . . a combination of

probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury.” Id.

Here, the Court finds it inappropriate to grant temporary injunctive relief affecting the

outcome of child custody determinations, as Plaintiff is unable to show a strong likelihood of

success on the merits for at least two reasons. First, there appears to be no basis for the exercise of

federal subject matter jurisdiction here over a domestic relations issue, nor any basis for diversity

jurisdiction given the lack of diversity of the defendants and the existence of a long-recognized

domestic relations exception to such jurisdiction. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 702-

04 (1992). Second, dismissal would in any case likely be necessary under the Younger abstention

doctrine, as this Court cannot ordinarily grant an injunction that would interfere with state judicial

proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 40-41 (1971). Absent “extraordinary circumstances,”

a district court will abstain from hearing a case when: (1) state proceedings are on-going; (2)

important state interests are involved; and (3) the plaintiff has an adequate opportunity to litigate

federal claims in the state proceedings. Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Cal., 67 F.3d 708,

712 (9th Cir. 1995). The facts currently before this Court indicate that this matter falls squarely

within the ambit of the Younger abstention doctrine.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for temporary injunctive

relief in the form of a stay on the state court proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/23/07 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02720-MJJ Document 9 Filed 05/23/07 Page 2 of 2