Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01047/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01047-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tomery Darling
Defendant
Michael Powell
Plaintiff

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL POWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOMERY DARLING,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-1047 MCE CKD PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This action was removed from state court. Removal jurisdiction statutes are strictly 

construed against removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 

1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the 

first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party invoking removal 

bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 

(9th Cir. 2009). Where it appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall 

be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

Defendant has removed from state court proceedings involving child custody, child 

support, and a domestic violence restraining order. Defendant seeks to vacate the judgment 

entered in state court in those proceedings. A federal district court does not have jurisdiction to 

review errors in state court decisions in civil cases. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. 

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923). 

Case 2:16-cv-01047-MCE-CKD Document 7 Filed 06/15/16 Page 1 of 4
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

“The district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction either to conduct a direct review of a state 

court judgment or to scrutinize the state court’s application of various rules and procedures 

pertaining to the state case.” Samuel v. Michaud, 980 F. Supp. 1381, 1411-12 (D. Idaho 1996), 

aff’d, 129 F.3d 127 (9th Cir. 1997). See also Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291-92 (9th Cir.1995) 

(finding no subject matter jurisdiction over section 1983 claim seeking, inter alia, implicit 

reversal of state trial court action); MacKay v. Pfeil, 827 F.2d 540, 544-45 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(attacking state court judgment because substantive defense improper under Rooker-Feldman). 

That the federal district court action alleges the state court’s action was unconstitutional does not 

change the rule. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486. Moreover, claims raised in federal district court need 

not have been argued in the state judicial proceedings to be barred by the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine. Id. at 483-84 & n.16. If federal claims are “inextricably intertwined” with a state court 

judgment, the federal court may not hear them. Id. “[T]he federal claim is ‘inextricably 

intertwined’ with the state court judgment if the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the 

state court wrongly decided the issues before it.” Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 25 

(1987) (Marshall, J., concurring). In sum, “a state court’s application of its rules and procedures 

is unreviewable by a federal district court. The federal district court only has jurisdiction to hear 

general challenges to state rules or claims that are based on the investigation of a new case arising 

upon new facts.” Samuel, 980 F. Supp. at 1412-13. 

Defendant has removed to federal court domestic relations proceedings which were heard 

in state court. Defendant has also moved to vacate the judgment entered in state court. ECF 

No. 6. Defendant does not raise a general federal challenge to state law. See Branson, 62 F. 3d at 

292. Stripped to its essence, this action is one for federal court review of state court proceedings. 

The court finds the instant action amounts to an attempt to litigate in federal court matters that are 

inextricably intertwined with state court decisions. The court will therefore recommend this 

action be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:16-cv-01047-MCE-CKD Document 7 Filed 06/15/16 Page 2 of 4
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

and that the motion to vacate the judgment be denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, said 

denial without prejudice to its renewal in state court.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Placer;

2. The motion to vacate judgment (ECF No. 6) be denied for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

/////

/////

/////

/////

 

1

The domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction bolsters the conclusion that 

subject matter jurisdiction in this case is inappropriate. 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) (explaining domestic relations exception to diversity 

jurisdiction). “Even when a federal question is presented, federal courts decline to hear disputes 

which would deeply involve them in adjudicating domestic matters.” Thompson v. Thompson, 

798 F.2d 1547, 1558 (9th Cir. 1986), aff’d, 484 U.S. 174 (1988); see also Tree Top v. Smith, 577 

F.2d 519 (9th Cir. 1978) (declining to exercise jurisdiction over habeas petition seeking custody 

of child who had been adopted by others). In this circuit, federal courts refuse jurisdiction if the 

primary issue concerns child custody issues or the status of parent and child or husband and wife. 

See Coats v. Woods, 819 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1987); Csibi v. Fustos, 670 F.2d 134, 136-37 (9th 

Cir. 1982). 

In Coats, plaintiff, invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged that her ex-husband and others 

involved in state court proceedings had wrongfully deprived her of custody of her children. 

Defendants included the former husband and his current wife, their attorney, the court-appointed 

attorney for the children, a court-appointed psychologist, two court commissioners, two superior 

court judges, the county, the police department, and an organization called United Fathers. 

Plaintiff specifically alleged that defendants deprived her of child custody, thereby depriving her 

of a liberty interest, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(2), and 1985(3). Because the action 

at its core implicated domestic relations issues, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s 

decision to abstain from exercising jurisdiction. Like Coats, this case is at core a domestic 

relations dispute. See id. at 237.

Case 2:16-cv-01047-MCE-CKD Document 7 Filed 06/15/16 Page 3 of 4
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

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: June 15, 2016

4 powell-darling0304.rf.57

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-01047-MCE-CKD Document 7 Filed 06/15/16 Page 4 of 4