1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DENISE CHAVEZ and MIGUEL R. Case No. 5:21-cv-01542-PA-AFM LUNA, SR., 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING 13 COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF 14 v. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 15 COUNTY COUNSEL, DEPARTMENTOF HUMAN 16 SERVICES SYSTEM/CHILDREN 17 AND FAMILY SERVICES (CFS), 18 Defendants. 19 20 On September 10, 2021, plaintiffs Denise Chavez and Miguel R. Luna, Sr., 21 proceeding pro se, filed a document entitled “Verified Show Cause of the Inferior 22 [sic] Court’s Personal Jurisdiction Over Plaintiff [sic] According to the United States 23 Constitution Federal Law.” (ECF No. 1; “Complaint”.) In the caption of the 24 Complaint, plaintiffs list as “respondents” an unspecified “County Counsel” and the 25 “Department of Human Services System/Children and Family Services (CFS).” (Id. 26 at 1.) The body of the Complaint does not list any defendants. On their Civil Cover 27 Sheet, plaintiffs state that the nature of the suit is “Other Civil Rights.” (ECF No. 1- 28 1 1.) The Court construes the Complaint as purporting to arise under

. 2 Plaintiffs paid the full filing fee. 3 “‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,’ possessing ‘only that power 4 authorized by Constitution and statute.’” Gunn v. Minton,

(2013) 5 (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994)). “A 6 federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary 7 affirmatively appears.” Stevedoring Servs. of Am., Inc. v. Eggert,

, 554 8 (9th Cir. 1992). To support federal question jurisdiction under

, a 9 plaintiff must present a federal question on the face of a complaint. See Rivet v. 10 Regions Bank,

(1998); Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer 11 Dome, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2009) (for a federal court to exercise 12 federal question jurisdiction under

, “the federal question must be 13 disclosed upon the face of the complaint” (internal quotation marks omitted)). A 14 “plaintiff bears the burden of proving” the existence of subject matter jurisdiction 15 and “must allege facts, not mere legal conclusions” to invoke the court’s jurisdiction. 16 Leite v. Crane Co.,

(9th Cir. 2014). “Absent a substantial 17 federal question,” a “district court lacks jurisdiction,” and claims that are “wholly 18 insubstantial” or “obviously frivolous” are insufficient to “raise a substantial federal 19 question for jurisdictional purposes.” Shapiro v. McManus,

, 45-46 20 (2015); see also Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992) (a claim lacks an 21 “arguable basis in fact” “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or 22 the wholly incredible”). 23 A federal court has “an ‘independent obligation’ to assess whether it has 24 jurisdiction” before proceeding to the merits of a case. Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 25

(2021) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,

, 514 26 (2006)); see also Lance v. Coffman,

(2007) (“Federal courts must 27 determine that they have jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits.”). The Court 28 may dismiss a case summarily if the pleading presents an obvious jurisdictional issue. 1 See, e.g., Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc.,

, 985, 989 2 (9th Cir. 2003) (a court may dismiss sua sponte and without notice for lack of subject 3 matter jurisdiction without violating due process). 4 Here, plaintiffs indicate on their Civil Cover Sheet that they and defendants 5 are citizens of California (ECF No. 1-1), and the face of the pleading identifies 6 plaintiffs as “of the People of California.” (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Plaintiffs do not purport 7 to allege diversity jurisdiction, and it appears clear that plaintiffs and all defendants 8 are citizens of California. Accordingly, diversity jurisdiction under

9 does not exist. Further, to the extent that plaintiffs are attempting to assert federal 10 question jurisdiction under

, as set forth below, the face of the 11 Complaint fails to present a substantial federal question over which the Court has 12 jurisdiction. 13 In the Complaint, plaintiffs reference the Due Process Clause in a few places 14 (ECF No. 1 at 3-4, 12-13), but they do not purport to raise any specific claims. 15 Rather, plaintiffs use (and provide definitions for) numerous legal terms, cite general 16 provisions of multiple federal statutes, and list numerous Supreme Court cases as 17 well as various state and federal court decisions. Plaintiffs additionally copy sizable 18 sections of various legal treatises into the pleading in no apparent order. This renders 19 the pleading largely unintelligible. However, because plaintiffs are appearing pro se, 20 the Court has construed the few factual allegations of the pleading liberally and 21 afforded plaintiffs the benefit of any doubt. See, e.g., Hebbe v. Pliler,

, 22 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 23 Plaintiffs indicate that they are acting herein “for the purpose of testing the 24 sufficiency of the jurisdiction of the San Bernardino Juvenile Dependency Court.” 25 (Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs allege that “Respondent” deprived “petitioner [sic] of their 26 unalienable right of due process,” but no “Respondent” is alleged in the Complaint 27 to have taken any action. (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiffs seek to have “said court to [sic] cease 28 and desist from all actions against petitioner [sic] and restore the petitioner [sic] to 1 their original state.” (Id. at 4, 10.) Once again, plaintiffs fail to allege what “actions” 2 they are challenging, and they do not allege that any individual caused the harm that 3 they seek to have the “said court” or “inferior court” “cease and desist from.” 4 Attached to the pleading is a document entitled “Superior Court of California, County 5 of San Bernardino, Detention Report,” which is dated January 14, 2021. (Id. at 16.) 6 In this report, it is recommended that the Superior Court remove several children 7 from their parents, who have the same names as plaintiffs in this action. (Id. at 16, 8 30.) 9 To the extent the allegations in the pleading are not unintelligible or obviously 10 frivolous, plaintiffs appear to be asking this Court to review and reject prior decisions 11 of the San Bernardino Superior Court. Specifically, it appears that plaintiffs are 12 attempting to challenge or appeal the decisions of the state court regarding the 13 removal of their children from their custody. Pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman 14 doctrine, however, federal district courts may exercise only original jurisdiction; they 15 may not exercise appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions. See District of 16 Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,

(1983); Rooker v. 17 Fidelity Trust Co.,

(1923). Review of state court decisions 18 may be conducted only by the United States Supreme Court. See Feldman,

at 476, 486; Rooker,

; see also

. Thus, this Court 20 lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims because they appear to be “state-court losers 21 complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district 22 court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of 23 those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,

, 24 284 (2005). Further, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars any federal constitutional 25 challenges that plaintiffs are raising herein because those claims seek to “disrupt or 26 ‘undo’ a prior state-court judgment, regardless of whether the state-court proceeding 27 afforded [plaintiffs] a full and fair opportunity to litigate [their] claims.” Bianchi v. 28 Rylaarsdam,

(9th Cir. 2003) (some internal quotation marks 1 || omitted); see also Cooper v. Ramos,

(9th Cir. 2012) (Rooker- 2 || Feldman also applies where federal adjudication of an issue “would impermissibly 3 || undercut the state ruling on the same issues” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 4 Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of 5 || showing the existence of subject matter jurisdiction for this action. Plaintiffs’ 6 || allegations impermissibly seek to “undercut” prior judgments of a state court, lack 7 || an arguable basis in law, or are wholly insubstantial or frivolous. As a result, the 8 || pleading fails to “raise a substantial federal question for jurisdictional purposes,” and 9 || the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Shapiro, 577 10 || U.S. at 45-46; Denton,

. 11 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the Complaint 1s dismissed without 12 || prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 13 14 || DATED: September 22, 2021

fh a9 □□□ 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28