Morgan v. Forsberg

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00309
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 JACOB MORGAN, Case No. 2:25-cv-00309-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 RHONDA K. FORSBERG, et al,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 11 (ECF No. 1) and Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). The Court has reviewed these filings and finds Plaintiff’s 12 IFP application is complete and granted below. 13 I. Discussion 14 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 15 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 16 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted 17 or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. A complaint should 18 be dismissed for failure to state a claim “if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no 19 set of facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to relief.” Buckey v. Los Angeles, 968 20 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992). Further, a complaint may also be dismissed if it is premised on a 21 nonexistent legal interest or when the defendants are clearly immune from suit. Neitzke v. Williams, 22 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989) (citing Williams v. Goldsmith, 701 F.2d 603 (7th Cir. 1983)). 23 In his Complaint, Plaintiff attempts to assert a claim for defamation of character under NRS 24 200.510-60 against the following Defendants: Rhonda Forsberg, a judge on the Eighth Judicial 25 District Court for Clark County, Nevada; Asia Akbar, who Plaintiff’s allegations suggest is the 26 mother of his children; and a Clark County Child Protective Services caseworker identified only as 27 “Kristine”. ECF No. 1-1 at 2-3. Though the factual allegations in the Complaint are less than a 1 jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim. The only cause of action asserted in the Complaint arises under 2 state law. Thus, the Court can exercise jurisdiction only if there is complete diversity of citizenship 3 between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff 4 states he is a resident of Clark County, Nevada. While no addresses are provided for Defendants, 5 Plaintiff identifies an Eighth Judicial District Court judge and Clark County caseworker associated 6 with Child Protective Services as defendants. These allegations are sufficient to establish complete 7 diversity among the parties does not exist. 8 Further, although it is typical to grant pro se plaintiffs leave to amend their pleadings, the 9 nature of Plaintiff’s allegations convinces the Court that it would be futile to grant such leave here. 10 Not only do Defendants Forsberg and Kristine enjoy absolute immunity from suit for actions taken 11 in their respective roles of judge and social worker, see Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 12 (9th Cir. 1988); Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 896 (9th Cir. 2003), but a review of the factual 13 allegations demonstrates Plaintiff’s claim arises out of a dispute in family court. ECF No. 1-1 at 3- 14 4 (“Judge Rhonda K. Forsberg order [sic] me to not be around my kids.”). Federal courts cannot 15 exercise jurisdiction over family law matters. Patil v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, Case No. 16-cv-01418 16 NC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58222, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2016) (“Federal courts do not have 17 jurisdiction over family law matters; rather, those decisions rest firmly with the state courts.”) (citing 18 Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992)). 19 Because it is clear the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying dispute 20 between Plaintiff, the mother of his children, and a family court judge regardless of the form of 21 pleading, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice, but without leave to amend. 22 Plaintiff retains the ability to bring his claim in state court against any Defendant who is not immune 23 from suit. 24 II. Order 25 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 26 No. 1) is GRANTED. 27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No 1-1) is DISMISSED 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no further pleadings are to be accepted or filed in this 2 matter. 3 Dated this 2nd day of June, 2025. 4 5 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27