Unpublished Disposition, 857 F.2d 1478 (9th Cir. 1986)
Annotate this CaseJoseph Robert REUTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.STATE OF CALIFORNIA; County of Santa Clara, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 86-2998.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 11, 1988.* Decided Sept. 13, 1988.
Before GOODWIN, Chief Judge, and BARNES and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Joseph Robert Reuter appeals from a district court order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action against the State of California and numerous state and county agencies. The district court dismissed the action with prejudice, relying upon the domestic relations abstention doctrine. Reuter alleged that a state custody proceeding involving his daughter interfered with his constitutional rights. We affirm.
FACTS
In 1985 a petition was filed at the Santa Clara County Juvenile Court for a declaration that Carol Reuter, Joseph Reuter's daughter, be a ward of the court. The Juvenile Court declared that Carol was a dependent because Reuter failed to exercise proper and effective parental care and control over Carol.
On April 29, 1986, Reuter filed a "Three Judge Court-Class Action" in the Northern District of California. On June 10, 1985, the district court denied Reuter's request to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the complaint with thirty days leave to amend. Reuter amended his complaint three times. On November 12, 1986, Reuter filed a petition for removal of a state court custody proceeding in the district court. On November 17, 1986, Reuter filed a "Notice of Related Case." On December 3, 1986, the district court ordered that the two cases be consolidated, and then dismissed the entire action with prejudice on the ground that the domestic relations abstention doctrine applied.1 Reuter timely appeals.
ANALYSIS
Although Reuter's brief contains no stated basis for appellate review and merely contains a recitation of his complaint, Reuter is arguably contending that the district court erred in abstaining from exercising its jurisdiction in the case. This contention lacks merit.
The district court dismissed Reuter's section 1983 action because of the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction. The district court noted that Reuter's allegations concerning the unconstitutionality of state law and state procedure used in Reuter's custody case went to the heart of the exception. Accordingly, because of the strong state interest in domestic relations matters, the fact that the case was pending before the state juvenile court, and Reuter's ability to raise constitutional claims in the state court, the district court decided to abstain from hearing the case. The district court also denied Reuter's attempt to remove juvenile court proceedings relating to his daughter's placement.
The domestic relations abstention doctrine requires district courts to decline from exercising jurisdiction in domestic relations cases where the primary issues involve the status of parent and child. Coats v. Woods, 819 F.2d 236, 237 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S. Ct. 46 (1987); McIntyre v. McIntyre, 771 F.2d 1316, 1317 (9th Cir. 1985); Fern v. Turman, 736 F.2d 1367, 1370 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1210 (1985). The strong state interest in domestic relations matters, the superior competence of state courts in settling family disputes, and the possibility of incompatible federal and state court decrees in cases of continuing judicial supervision by the state, make federal abstention appropriate in these cases. Peterson v. Babbitt, 708 F.2d 465, 466 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415 (1979)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the abstention doctrine was applicable in Reuter's section 1983 claim and removal action. Reuter is apparently seeking federal review of the proper custodial placement of his daughter. Such issues are best addressed in state court. Peterson, 708 F.2d at 466 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Csibi v. Fustos, 670 F.2d 134, 136-37 (9th Cir. 1982). Although Reuter raises constitutional challenges to the proceedings, these issues revolve around the care and custody of Reuter's child. Reuter is free to present his constitutional claims to the state court. See Coats, 819 F.2d at 237 (" [i]f the constitutional claims in the case have independent merit, the state courts are competent to hear them"); Peterson, 708 F.2d at 466 (" [w]hatever constitutional claims [the plaintiff] may propose he is at liberty to present to the ... state courts"). Accordingly, because the action involves the custody of his daughter, the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the abstention doctrine and dismissing Reuter's section 1983 action and removal petition.2
CONCLUSION
The district court's dismissal is AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this Circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3
The district court apparently misplaced for seven days the order accompanying the judgment of dismissal which was not signed until December 10, 1985, and which was not filed until December 11, 1986
On September 15, 1987, Reuter filed with this court a "Motion for Court Order Designing Summons Recipient." The motion was referred to the screening panel by the motions unit. Reuter apparently requests this court to order service of a summons upon Jocelyn Cocco, who is Ann Reuter's Attorney. The motion also requests that Stanford University provide a list of names of its corporate officers. The motion is denied
On February 22, 1988, Reuter also filed a "Motion to Add Additional Defendants and Joinder of Similar State Actions ..." The motion was referred to the screening panel by the Clerk of the Court. Reuter apparently requests this court to add as defendants the Clerk of Appeals of the Superior Court, Probate Court, Ann Reuter, and Jocelyn Cocco. Attached to the motion is a copy of a district court order dismissing Reuter's petition to proceed in forma pauperis and denying his request for a writ of mandamus ordering the state to pay for the transcripts of the state court hearing. This court has already granted Reuter's request to proceed in forma pauperis and denied his request to have the transcripts prepared at government expense. As to Reuter's motion to add additional defendants, although parties may be added by order of the court during the pendency of the action, Reuter may not add additional parties upon appeal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Cf. Cook & Sons Equip., Inc. v. Killen, 277 F.2d 607, 609 (9th Cir. 1960) (no authority to amend a notice of appeal to bring in additional parties). Accordingly, the court denies the motion.
Finally, on May 12, 1988, Reuter submitted a "Note and Exhibit" which was referred to the screening panel. In the "Note and Exhibit," Reuter alleges that the exhibits prove he has exhausted his state remedies relating to "civil rights violations and state action in probate matter...." Attached to the "Note and Exhibit" is a copy of the California Supreme Court's order denying review of his appeal. This information is irrelevant to a determination of whether the domestic relations abstention doctrine applies and we do not consider it.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
