Underwood v. County of San Diego Human Services Agency

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 25, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00120
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 LARRY UNDERWOOD; JOYCE Case No.: 25cv120 BEN (DDL) AGIOBENEBO, 13 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiffs, 14 DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. 15

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HUMAN 16 [Dkt. Nos. 3, 8, 10] SERVICES AGENCY, ET AL, 17 Defendants. 18

19 Now before the Court is the motion of the County of San Diego to dismiss the 20 Complaint. The County asserts, inter alia, that this Court lacks subject matter 21 jurisdiction. The Court agrees. 22 In their Complaint, it is alleged that Plaintiffs were parents of a minor child. A 23 juvenile dependency action was initiated and adjudicated in proceedings before a juvenile 24 dependency court of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. Plaintiffs’ 25 prayer for relief seeks $150,000,000 in damages and an order from this Court ordering 26 that their child be returned to their custody and the child’s birth certificate amended. 27 28 1 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine relieves a federal court of subject matter jurisdiction 2 for an appeal from a judgment of a state court. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th 3 Cir. 2003); see D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. 4 Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). As the Supreme Court has explained, this 5 doctrine applies to “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by 6 state-court judgments rendered before the [federal] district court proceedings commenced 7 and inviting [federal] district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon 8 Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Even if a plaintiff 9 frames her claim as a constitutional challenge, if she seeks what in substance would be 10 appellate review of a state judgment, the action is barred by Rooker-Feldman. Bianchi v. 11 Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 901 n.4 (9th Cir. 2003); Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 12 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming Rooker-Feldman dismissal of challenge to state 13 foreclosure proceedings). 14 To determine whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies, a federal district court 15 must assess whether the plaintiff is attempting to bring a “forbidden de facto appeal.” 16 See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163. A case is a de facto appeal if “a federal plaintiff asserts as a 17 legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state 18 court judgment based on that decision.” See id. at 1164. If the case is a de facto appeal, 19 the plaintiff is also barred from litigating “any issues that are ‘inextricably intertwined’ 20 with issues in that de facto appeal.” See Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1142 21 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Noel, 341 F.3d at 1166). Issues presented are inextricably 22 intertwined “[w]here the district court must hold that the state court was wrong in order 23 to find in favor of the plaintiff.” Doe & Assocs. Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 24 1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001); Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 782 (9th Cir. 2012). `1 25 It is apparent that Plaintiffs are asserting that the juvenile dependency court 26 committed errors in state court case No. J521374 resulting in a removal of their minor 27 child from their custody and care. This is the kind of legal action barred from federal 28 court. It is a de facto appeal because Plaintiffs assert as a legal wrong a juvenile custody 1 || decision by the state court and Plaintiffs seek from this Court an order returning custody 2 the minor child. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1164. In other words, Plaintiffs’ claims are 3 || inextricably intertwined with the appeal because the Court must hold that the state court 4 || was wrong in order to find in favor of the plaintiff. Doe & Assocs. Law Offices v. 5 || Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1029-30 (9" Cir. 2001) (“If the federal constitutional claims 6 || presented to the district court are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state court's 7 ||judgment, then Doe is essentially asking the district court to review the state court’s 8 || decision, which the district court may not do.’’). 9 The Court concludes that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine relieves this Court of 10 |} subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim against the County defendants. 11 || Accordingly, the County’s motion to dismiss (Dkt # 8) 1s granted without prejudice. 12 || Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an Amended Complaint. If they decide to amend, 13 || Plaintiffs are directed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. 14 Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer the state juvenile dependency case (Case No. 15 J521374) to this Court (Dkt. # 3), and Plaintiffs’ motion to enter default judgment (Dkt. # 16 || 10), are likewise denied. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ||Dated: April 25, 2025 19 0 Hon. Roger T. Benitez United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28