Martin v. Judge Rodriguez-True

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: August 12, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-03132
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Aug 12, 2025 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 DON N. MARTIN, JR., No. 1:25-CV-03132-MKD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 9 v.

10 JUDGE RODRIGUEZ-TRUE, COMMISSIONER WRIGHT E, and 11 KARINA GOMEZ, ECF Nos. 2, 6

12 Defendants. 13 14 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint. ECF No. 1. A complaint 15 filed by any party that seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 16 1915(a) is subject to screening, and the Court must dismiss a complaint that is 17 frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants that 18 are immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 19 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Further, “[f]ederal courts are always 20 under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction, and a federal 1 court may not entertain an action over which it has no jurisdiction.” Hernandez v. 2 Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (cleaned up); see Fed. R.

3 Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action if subject matter 4 jurisdiction is lacking). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint liberally, see Capp 5 v. Cnty. of San Diego, 940 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2019), the Court concludes it

6 lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 7 Plaintiff “seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages to remedy 8 the unlawful deprivation of parental rights.” ECF No. 1 at 1; see also id. at 5 9 (seeking to set aside state court orders). However, it is “well established” that

10 “federal courts should decline jurisdiction of cases concerning domestic relations 11 when the primary issue concerns the status of parent and child or husband and 12 wife.” Peterson v. Babbitt, 708 F.2d 465, 466 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted).

13 “The strong state interest in domestic relations matters, the superior competence of 14 state courts in settling family disputes because regulation and supervision of 15 domestic relations within their borders is entrusted to the states, and the possibility 16 of incompatible federal and state court decrees in cases of continuing judicial

17 supervision by the state makes federal abstention in these cases appropriate.” Id. 18 Further, the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction prohibits federal 19 courts from hearing “cases involving the issuance of a divorce, alimony, or child

20 custody decree.” Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992). 1 The Court thus lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. See, e.g., Pinkston 2 v. Lueck, 22 F. App’x 782, 783 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Federal district courts do not have

3 jurisdiction over direct challenges to final decisions of state courts, even when the 4 challenge involves federal constitutional issues. Because the claims in the 5 Pinkstons’ complaint are inextricably intertwined with Nevada state court child

6 custody proceedings, the district court correctly concluded that it lacked subject 7 matter jurisdiction over the action.”) (citations omitted). The Court accordingly 8 exercises its inherent authority to sua sponte dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. See 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Hearns v. San Bernadino

10 Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2007); see also 28 U.S.C. § 11 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court denies leave to amend as any amendment would be 12 futile. See Lucas v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding

13 that when a court dismisses a pro se plaintiff’s complaint, it must give the plaintiff 14 leave to amend “[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the 15 defect” in the complaint). 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

17 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without 18 prejudice. 19 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 2, and Motion

20 for Marshal Service, ECF No. 6, are DENIED as moot. 1 3. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal 2 of this Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any

3 arguable basis in law or fact. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this 5 Order, enter judgment, provide a copy to Plaintiff, and CLOSE THE FILE.

6 DATED August 12, 2025.

7 s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20