Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Title Michael J. Holland v. County of Los Angeles

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 17, 2012

TITLE MICHAEL J. HOLLAND
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Andrew J. Guilford

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable ANDREW J. GUILFORD

Lisa Bredahl Not Present

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR

FAILURE TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING FEDERAL JURISDICTION

Plaintiff has sued the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, and some of its employees (collectively, "DCFS"). Plaintiff has previously brought two similar actions in pro per, and in one named five judicial officers as defendants. Both actions were dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff is upset, among other things, about a ruling regarding the custody of his children. The custody battle has indeed been acrimonious, as might be expected given that Plaintiff wrote a book entitled Why Husbands Kill Their Wives and Boyfriends Beat Their Girlfriends.

Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, it is "presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction." Vacek v. United States Postal Serv., 447 F.3d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted)). At oral argument, Plaintiff's counsel made reference to a child custody order, and in general, child custody is the province of state courts, and state law on child custody is best decided by state courts.

As such, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why jurisdiction exists over this case. The parties fully briefed the topic. Numerous possible defenses exist, such as res judicata and collateral estoppel. Also, at oral argument, the Court did not get a satisfying answer to its concerns about federal courts being flooded with cases such as this one. But after a thorough review, the Court finds that under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine it may not hear this case. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the First Amended Complaint is dismissed. Defendants shall submit a short judgment reflecting that judgment is entered against the Plaintiff and for all the Defendants.

20120917

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.