Nese v. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

N.D. California

Nese v. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

DecidedJune 6, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-04700

StatusUnknown

This text of Nese v. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (Nese v. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nese v. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 ALPER NESE, Case No. 25-cv-04700-BLF

9 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED 10 v. IN FORMA PAUPERIS; SCREENING PETITION; AND DISMISSING 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, PETITION WITHOUT LEAVE TO COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, AMEND 12 Respondent. [Re: ECF 1, 2] 13

14 15 Petitioner Alper Nese, proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate and 16 Emergency Stay, and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). See Petition, ECF 1; 17 IFP Application, ECF 2. The Court is satisfied that IFP status is warranted based on Petitioner’s 18 affidavit describing his lack of financial resources. Accordingly, Petitioner’s application to 19 proceed IFP is GRANTED. 20 When a district court grants IFP status, it must screen the pleading and dismiss the action if 21 it “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks 22 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see 23 also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000). 24 Petitioner seeks to vacate a state court order in a family law case and to stay further 25 proceedings in that case. See Petition at 2.1 It appears that Petitioner and his spouse, Minhee 26 Chang, are divorcing and that they have some disputes with respect to their minor son. See 27 1 Petition at 2-3; IFP Application at 2. The Santa Clara County Superior Court issued an order on 2 May 22, 2025, authorizing Ms. Chang to travel internationally with the minor son. See Petition at 3 2 & Ex. A (state court minute order). Petitioner asks this Court to vacate the state court’s travel 4 order and to stay all state court proceedings involving the minor child. See Petition at 2. 5 “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction to 6 review the final determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings.” Benavidez v. Cnty. of San 7 Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “If a 8 plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, Rooker-Feldman 9 bars subject matter jurisdiction in federal district court.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, 10 and ellipses omitted). The bar “applies to both final and interlocutory decisions from a state 11 court,” see id. at 1143, “even where the challenge to the state court decision involves federal 12 constitutional issues,” see id. at 1142 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 13 “Federal courts commonly conclude they lack jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman 14 doctrine to review orders of state courts addressing matters of family and custody law[.]” Maxwell 15 v. Pacione, No. 1:24-CV-00409-JLT-CDB, 2024 WL 3845342, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2024) 16 (collecting cases); see also Moore v. Cnty. of Butte, 547 F. App’x 826, 829 (9th Cir. 2013) 17 (plaintiff’s “requests that the federal court reverse the outcomes of her divorce proceedings, child 18 custody case, and domestic violence hearings” were “properly dismissed” under Rooker- 19 Feldman). This Court likewise concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the 20 state court’s travel order or stay further state court proceedings involving Petitioner’s child.2 21 Because the petition is subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 22 amendment would be futile. Foster v. KNTV Television, Inc., 444 F. App’x 132 (9th Cir. 2011) 23 (“Amendment here would have been futile, because Foster’s proposed amendment still . . . raised 24 claims barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.). 25

26 2 The petition does not implicate the exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine for claims that do not directly challenge the state court decision but rather allege fraud by a third party in obtaining 27 the state court ruling. See Benavidez, 993 F.3d at 1142-43. Petitioner directly challenges the state 1 Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Clerk shall 2 || close the file. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: June 6, 2025 ° BETH LABSON FREEMAN 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 ALPER NESE, Case No. 25-cv-04700-BLF

9 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED 10 v. IN FORMA PAUPERIS; SCREENING PETITION; AND DISMISSING 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, PETITION WITHOUT LEAVE TO COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, AMEND 12 Respondent. [Re: ECF 1, 2] 13

14 15 Petitioner Alper Nese, proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate and 16 Emergency Stay, and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). See Petition, ECF 1; 17 IFP Application, ECF 2. The Court is satisfied that IFP status is warranted based on Petitioner’s 18 affidavit describing his lack of financial resources. Accordingly, Petitioner’s application to 19 proceed IFP is GRANTED. 20 When a district court grants IFP status, it must screen the pleading and dismiss the action if 21 it “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks 22 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see 23 also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000). 24 Petitioner seeks to vacate a state court order in a family law case and to stay further 25 proceedings in that case. See Petition at 2.1 It appears that Petitioner and his spouse, Minhee 26 Chang, are divorcing and that they have some disputes with respect to their minor son. See 27 1 Petition at 2-3; IFP Application at 2. The Santa Clara County Superior Court issued an order on 2 May 22, 2025, authorizing Ms. Chang to travel internationally with the minor son. See Petition at 3 2 & Ex. A (state court minute order). Petitioner asks this Court to vacate the state court’s travel 4 order and to stay all state court proceedings involving the minor child. See Petition at 2. 5 “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction to 6 review the final determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings.” Benavidez v. Cnty. of San 7 Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “If a 8 plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, Rooker-Feldman 9 bars subject matter jurisdiction in federal district court.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, 10 and ellipses omitted). The bar “applies to both final and interlocutory decisions from a state 11 court,” see id. at 1143, “even where the challenge to the state court decision involves federal 12 constitutional issues,” see id. at 1142 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 13 “Federal courts commonly conclude they lack jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman 14 doctrine to review orders of state courts addressing matters of family and custody law[.]” Maxwell 15 v. Pacione, No. 1:24-CV-00409-JLT-CDB, 2024 WL 3845342, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2024) 16 (collecting cases); see also Moore v. Cnty. of Butte, 547 F. App’x 826, 829 (9th Cir. 2013) 17 (plaintiff’s “requests that the federal court reverse the outcomes of her divorce proceedings, child 18 custody case, and domestic violence hearings” were “properly dismissed” under Rooker- 19 Feldman). This Court likewise concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the 20 state court’s travel order or stay further state court proceedings involving Petitioner’s child.2 21 Because the petition is subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 22 amendment would be futile. Foster v. KNTV Television, Inc., 444 F. App’x 132 (9th Cir. 2011) 23 (“Amendment here would have been futile, because Foster’s proposed amendment still . . . raised 24 claims barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.). 25

26 2 The petition does not implicate the exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine for claims that do not directly challenge the state court decision but rather allege fraud by a third party in obtaining 27 the state court ruling. See Benavidez, 993 F.3d at 1142-43. Petitioner directly challenges the state 1 Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Clerk shall 2 || close the file. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: June 6, 2025 ° BETH LABSON FREEMAN 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nese v. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nese-v-superior-court-of-california-county-of-santa-clara-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack