Verna Porzio, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Children's Protective Services; Annette Maggiora; Attorneygeneral for the State of California, Defendants-appellees, 977 F.2d 590 (9th Cir. 1992)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Verna Porzio appeals pro se the district court's interlocutory order dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition and denying her application for a preliminary injunction in connection with her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. Because the district court has not issued a final decision disposing of Porzio's section 1983 action, we have jurisdiction only to review the denial of the preliminary injunction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (court of appeals has jurisdiction to review final decision of district court); 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1) (court of appeals has jurisdiction to review interlocutory order refusing injunction); Transworld Airlines v. American Coupon Exchange, 913 F.2d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 1990) (same). We affirm.

We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion. Hunt v. National Broadcasting Co., 872 F.2d 289, 292 (9th Cir. 1989). "A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips in [her] favor." Id.

Here, in her section 1983 action against Children's Protective Services of San Diego County, social worker Annette Maggiora, and the Attorney General of the State of California, Porzio seeks the return of her son from state custody. Because federal courts generally decline to exercise jurisdiction in cases involving domestic relations, traditionally an area of state concern, Coats v. Woods, 819 F.2d 236, 236-37 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 802 (1987), the district court did not err by finding that Porzio did not show any probability of success on the merits of her civil rights claim. We therefore affirm the denial of Porzio's application for a preliminary injunction. See Hunt, 872 F.2d at 289.

Porzio's August 26, 1992 motion to add defendants is denied. Her second motion for reconsideration of this court's order of October 9, 1991, is also denied.

AFFIRMED.