Parks v. County of Los Angeles Child Support Services Division, California et al, No. 7:2009cv00075 - Document 14 (N.D. Tex. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 12 Findings and Recommendations (RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed without prejudice under the authority of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b) (6) as failing to state a cause of action on which relief may be granted. Alter natively, to the extent, if at all, that Plaintiff has alleged within his original Complaint or Amended Complaint, alone or in combination, a deprivation of his liberty interest as a parent in the care, custody, and control of his child under Troxel v. Granville, 530 U. S. 57, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000) and its antecedents, which I have concluded he has not, venue does not lie in this Court. Under 28 U.S.C. §1391(a) venue lies in the Western Division of the Central District of California since all defendants, the Counties of Los Angeles and Ventura and their respective agencies, are deemed to reside there and the substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred there and not in this Di strict. This Court may dismiss without prejudice so as to Plaintiff to file an appropriate action in the Western Division of the Central District of California, or under 28 U.S.C. §1404 may transfer this case to Western Division of the Central D istrict of California where it might have been brought.) Consequently, the Court denies Plaintiffs Response to the Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 13), insofar as it is construed as a motion to transfer this case. (Ordered by Judge Reed C O'Connor on 9/30/09) (ttm)

Download PDF
Parks v. County of Los Angeles Child Support Services Division, California et al Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION CURTIS M. PARKS, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION, et al, Defendant. § § § § § § § § Civil No. 7:09-CV-0075-O ECF ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE After reviewing the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 12) and Plaintiff’s Response thereto (Doc. # 13), and in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. Specifically, the Court concludes that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate, as was recommended by the Magistrate Judge, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(6) as failing to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. In doing so, the Court declines to accept the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, offered in the alternative, to transfer this action to the Western Division of the Central District of California under authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Consequently, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Response to the Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 13), insofar as it is construed as a motion to transfer this case. SO ORDERED this 30th day of September, 2009. _____________________________________ Reed O’Connor UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dockets.Justia.com

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.