Vigil v. Department of Child Support Services

No. 2:24-cv-2109-TLN-JDP (PS) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2025) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · April 4, 2025 · No. 2:24-cv-2109-TLN-JDP (PS)

Summary

The document contains findings and recommendations by a United States magistrate judge in a pro se action challenging a state-court child support order and the Department of Child Support Services' collection efforts. The court recommends dismissal without leave to amend because the claims seeking to invalidate the state order and recover payments are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The recommendation also advises closing the case and explains the procedure and deadline for filing objections.

Holdings

  1. The claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because plaintiff sought relief for injuries allegedly caused by a state court judgment and requested that the federal court invalidate the child support order and reimburse payments made under it.
  2. Dismissal without leave to amend was appropriate because the jurisdictional deficiency could not be cured through amendment.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the federal district court had jurisdiction to review and invalidate a state court child support order.
  2. Whether plaintiff's first amended complaint should be dismissed without leave to amend because the jurisdictional defect could not be cured by amendment.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (18)

  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)(followed)
  • Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc)(followed)
  • Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997)(followed)
  • Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)(followed)
  • D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483 n.16, 486 (1983)(followed)
  • Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 18.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…