FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This action, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, wasreferred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Presently before the court are defendants' motions to dismiss. After briefing, the motions were taken under submission pursuant toLocal Rule 78-230(h). Having reviewed all submitted papers, the court recommends that defendants' motions be granted without further leave to amend.
Plaintiff initiated this action on January 25, 2008, alleging claims against Reema Sareen, Rajiv K. Grover, and the County of Sacramento (erroneously sued as Sacramento County Department of Child Support Services). Reema Sareen ("Reema") is plaintiff's estranged wife, and Rajiv Grover ("Grover") is her brother.
This action arises out of plaintiff's dissatisfaction with a ruling by the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District ("Court of Appeal"). Reema initiated the state court action to petition the state for custody of her and plaintiff's child.
Plaintiff, a United States citizen, married Reema in 2002 in India. Compl., ¶ 12. They returned the United States and had a child in February 2004, in New York. Id. In August 2004, the family went to India on vacation, where plaintiff initiated divorce and custody proceedings. Plaintiff then left India, leaving Reema and their child behind. Reema asserts that they could not immediately return to the United States, because her and her son's passports had "gone missing," and plaintiff refused to consent to the issuance of new American passport for their son. See Defendants Reema Sareen and Rajiv K. Grover's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss ("Sareen Mtn."), 2:1-6.
Eventually, Reema and the child were able to return to United States, where they went to live with Reema's brother in California. In January 2006, she initiated proceedings in California state court, petitioning the court for custody of her son. Plaintiff filed a motion to quash Reema's petition, citing the ongoing Indian proceedings, and arguing that California had no jurisdiction to hear the petition. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ("UCCJEA"). See Compl., Exh. A (Superior Court of California County of Sacramento, Ruling on Submitted Matter, In re the Marriage of Reema Sareen and Vikas Sareen, No. 06FL00798). The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that California did have jurisdiction to adjudicate the custody proceedings initiated by Reema. See Compl., Exh. C (Court of Appeal's decision, In re Sareen, p. 17).
Plaintiff sought review of that decision in the Supreme Court of California, but his request for review and a stay were denied. See Compl., Exh. E. Plaintiff also filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was also denied. Compl., ¶ 28; Defendants Reema Sareen and Rajiv K. Grover's Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion to Dismiss ("Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice"), Exhs. 3, 4.
Plaintiff initiated this action, alleging that the decision by the California Court of Appeal violated his "constitutional rights to Equal Protection of the Laws under the Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)." Compl., p. 6 ("First Cause of Action"). In particular, he alleges that the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting UCCJEA and in concluding that jurisdiction existed over Reema's petition.
Plaintiff also alleges that the Court of Appeal decision violated his rights under "Art. VI, § 2, Privileges and Immunities Clause (42 U.S.C. § 1983)." Compl., p. 7 ("Second Cause of Action"). He alleges that as "a resident of New York," he "has not been treated the same as other litigants in initial child custody jurisdiction determinations in California." Id., ¶ 25.
Next, plaintiff alleges that defendants denied him "Due Process of Laws under Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)." Compl., p. 8 ("Third Cause of Action"). More specifically, he alleges that it was a violation of his constitutional rights for defendants, including the County of Sacramento, to initiate child support enforcement proceedings against him in both California and his home state of New York, while this action and his certiorari petition were pending. Compl., ¶¶ 27-31.
Finally, plaintiff alleges that Reema and Grover have "engaged in a pattern of lies and deceit including false statements made during judicial proceedings and official federal documentation. . . ." Compl., ¶ 33. He alleges that such statements are violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1542, 1621, 1622 and 1623, and asks that they "be prosecuted for perjury and subornation of perjury." Id., pp. 9-11.
Defendants Reema and Grover move to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). They assert that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiffs' first and second causes of action, and fails to state a claim as to the remaining claims. The County of Sacramento joins in their motion, and moves ...