(PS) Yasharahla La et al v. Pettet et al, No. 2:2018cv02150 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/27/2018 RECOMMENDING that the action be dismissed without prejudice; Plaintiff's 2 , 3 Motions to proceed informa pauperis be denied without prejudice as moot; IT IS ALSO ORDERED that all pleading, discovery,and motion practice in this action are STAYED pending resolution of the findings and recommendations; Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these F & R's. (Reader, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NASHAYAH YASHARAHLA LA, et al. No. 2:18-cv-2150-KJM-KJN PS 12 Plaintiffs 13 14 15 ORDER AND v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JENNIE PETTET, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiffs Nashayah La and Amataza Al, proceeding without counsel, commenced this 19 action and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1-3.) Plaintiffs, who claim 20 to be members of the Moorish National Republic Federal Government, assert violation of their 21 constitutional rights against various social workers, law enforcement officers, and a superior court 22 judge who were purportedly involved in placing plaintiffs’ minor child in protective custody, 23 resulting in approximately 20 different hearings in state court. They seek inter alia injunctive 24 relief to restrain Yolo County Child Protective Services and law enforcement from interfering 25 with their child. 26 A careful review of the complaint reveals that it would be inappropriate for a federal court 27 to interfere in such a family law matter. See Coats v. Woods, 819 F.2d 236, 237 (9th Cir. 1987) 28 (no abuse of discretion in district court’s abstention from hearing § 1983 claims arising from a 1 1 child custody dispute in state court). Family law disputes are domestic relations matters 2 traditionally within the domain of the state courts, and it is appropriate for federal district courts 3 to abstain from hearing such cases, which often involve continued judicial supervision by the 4 state. Coats, 819 F.2d at 237. If plaintiff truly believes that the superior court judge’s orders 5 were erroneous, the proper recourse is appeal of those orders in the state appellate courts, who are 6 competent to hear arguments based on the federal constitution—not the filing of a new action in 7 federal court. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 9 1. The action be dismissed without prejudice. 2. Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis in this court (ECF Nos. 2, 3) be 10 11 denied without prejudice as moot. 12 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 13 In light of those recommendations, IT IS ALSO ORDERED that all pleading, discovery, 14 and motion practice in this action are STAYED pending resolution of the findings and 15 recommendations. With the exception of objections to the findings and recommendations, and 16 non-frivolous motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any motions 17 or filings until the findings and recommendations are resolved. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 20 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 21 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 22 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 23 shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 24 objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 25 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 26 Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 27 //// 28 //// 2 1 2 IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. Dated: September 27, 2018 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
