Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01785/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01785-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
LaQuesha Coleman
Plaintiff
Department of Children and Family Services
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAQUESHA COLEMAN, CASE NO. CV F 06-1785 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND

FAMILY SERVICES,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Laquesha Coleman (“plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis and on December

11, 2006, filed a complaint (“complaint”) to name as defendant the Department of Children and Family

Services (“defendant”). The complaint appears to take issue with November 27, 2000 detention of

plaintiff’s children arising from plaintiff’s “extensive history of domestic violence” and exposure of

plaintiff’s children to “this domestic violence.” The complaint requests “defendant to stop detention of

her minors” and monetary relief.

The magistrate judge issued December 14, 2006 findings and recommendations to dismiss this

action without prejudice on grounds that: (1) the complaint fails to establish this Court’s subject matter

jurisdiction; (2) the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (3) the complaint

Case 1:06-cv-01785-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 01/10/07 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

is time-barred; and (4) a further attempt at amendment is unwarranted based on the complaint’s

deficiencies and apparent attempt to vex defendant. Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. After

evaluating the record, this Court finds the magistrate judge’s December 14, 2006 findings and

recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. The objections do not present a

basis to not adopt the findings and recommendations. The objections confirm plaintiff’s action is time

barred. In addition, it appears plaintiff is contending that defendant violated her rights under state law.

This court lacks jurisdiction over such state law claims.

Accordingly, this Court:

1. ADOPTS in full the magistrate judge’s December 14, 2006 findings and

recommendations;

2. DISMISSES this action without prejudice on grounds that: (1) the complaint fails to

establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction; (2) the complaint fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted; (3) the complaint is time-barred; and (4) a further

attempt at amendment is unwarranted based on the complaint’s deficiencies and apparent

attempt to vex defendant; and

3. DIRECTS this Clerk of the Court to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01785-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 01/10/07 Page 2 of 2