Jasso-Martinez v. Lara

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA CLODUALDO JASSO-MARTINEZ, Case No. 3:24-CV-00351-ART-CLB Plaintiff ORDER ON REPORT AND 7 v. RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE (ECF No. 6) MARIA ELENA RODRIGUEZ LARA, et. al., 9 Defendants.

Plaintiff Clodualdo Jasso-Martinez commenced this action against Maria Elena Rodriguez Lara, Martha Lucero Rodrigez Lara, Lois Fernando Rodrigez Lara, and Tamatha Schreiner, alleging claims regarding his child custody proceedings in state court. (ECF No. 1-1.) Plaintiff also filed two applications to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 1,4), and a motion to proceed with all matters related to this claim, (ECF No. 5).

Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), which recommended that Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis be granted, Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice, and his motion to proceed with all matters be denied as moot. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R. (ECF No. 7.)

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for full custody of children (ECF No. 7), and a motion for consideration as evidence where rights are again violated (ECF No. 14).

I. Review of Reports & Recommendations Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by [a] magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). As Plaintiff has filed an objection to Judge Baldwin’s R&R, the Court conducts review de novo.

7 II. Analysis 8 Judge Baldwin’s R&R recommended dismissal because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff’s objection apologizes for his narrative and explains that he is representing himself. It does not address Judge Baldwin’s analysis of subject matter jurisdiction.

13 The Court understands that self-representation is a difficult task, and that courts must construe pro se complaints liberally. Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 15 1072, 1080 (9th Cir. 2016). However, even if the Court were to construe plaintiff’s claim as a claim for custody of his children, the court lacks jurisdiction over such matters. As Judge Baldwin’s R&R noted, federal courts do not have jurisdiction over domestic relations disputes involving child custody. Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 702. (1992); Peterson v. Babbitt, 708 F.2d 465, 466 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). Thus, child custody matters are to be adjudicated in state courts. Peterson, 708 F.2d at 466. Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any claims Plaintiff asserts, the Court will adopt Judge Baldwin’s analysis on that ground. The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because it does not appear that amendment to the complaint would support subject matter jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss without leave to amend as amendment would be futile.

27 Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court will also deny Plaintiff’s other motions in this matter as moot.

1 III. Conclusion 2 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's objection to Judge Baldwin’s Report || and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) is OVERRULED.

4 It is further ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation || (ECF No. 6) is ADOPTED.

6 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs applications to proceed in forma || pauperis (ECF Nos. 1, 4) are DENIED AS MOOT.

8 It is further ordered that the Clerk FILE the complaint (ECF No. 1-1.)

9 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be DISMISSED || without prejudice but without leave to amend.

11 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's other motions (ECF Nos. 5, 7, 14) are || DENIED AS MOOT.

14 Dated this day of November, 2024.

16 Ans jlasect en 17 ANNE R. TRAUM 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE