Martin v. Judge Rodriguez-True

Opinion

FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Aug 12, 2025 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK No. 1:25-CV-03132-MKD Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION v.

COMMISSIONER WRIGHT E, and KARINA GOMEZ, ECF Nos. 2, 6

Defendants. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint. ECF No. 1. A complaint filed by any party that seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to screening, and the Court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants that are immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Further, “[f]ederal courts are always under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction, and a federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no jurisdiction.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (cleaned up); see Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action if subject matter jurisdiction is lacking). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint liberally, see Capp v. Cnty. of San Diego, 940 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2019), the Court concludes it

lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff “seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages to remedy the unlawful deprivation of parental rights.” ECF No. 1 at 1; see also id. at 5 (seeking to set aside state court orders). However, it is “well established” that

“federal courts should decline jurisdiction of cases concerning domestic relations when the primary issue concerns the status of parent and child or husband and wife.” Peterson v. Babbitt, 708 F.2d 465, 466 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted).

“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.” Id. Further, the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction prohibits federal courts from hearing “cases involving the issuance of a divorce, alimony, or child

custody decree.” Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992). The Court thus lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. See, e.g., Pinkston v. Lueck, 22 F. App’x 782, 783 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Federal district courts do not have

jurisdiction over direct challenges to final decisions of state courts, even when the challenge involves federal constitutional issues. Because the claims in the Pinkstons’ complaint are inextricably intertwined with Nevada state court child

custody proceedings, the district court correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action.”) (citations omitted). The Court accordingly exercises its inherent authority to sua sponte dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Hearns v. San Bernadino

Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2007); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court denies leave to amend as any amendment would be futile. See Lucas v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding

that when a court dismisses a pro se plaintiff’s complaint, it must give the plaintiff leave to amend “[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect” in the complaint). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 2, and Motion

for Marshal Service, ECF No. 6, are DENIED as moot. 3. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any

arguable basis in law or fact. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment, provide a copy to Plaintiff, and CLOSE THE FILE.

DATED August 12, 2025.

s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE