Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Hankins v. Superior Court of California

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

July 8, 2013

STEPHANIE N. HANKINS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS JUDGE JACK M. JACOBSON, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND GRANTING 30 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND

SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 25, 2012, Plaintiffs Stephanie N. Hankins ("S. Hankins") and Gary D. Reed ("Reed" or collectively "Plaintiffs"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action against Defendant Stanislaus County Child Protective Services. On January 16, 2013, the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiffs' complaint and allowing them 30 days to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 7.) On February 13, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint ("FAC"), against thirty-nine (39) Defendants (collectively "Defendants"). (Doc. 8.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' FAC is DISMISSED without prejudice and Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend.

II. BACKGROUND

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs' FAC appears to be missing a page, as "Facts" numbers 2 through 4 are not provided. ( See Doc. 8, pp. 5-6.) Generally, Plaintiffs allege that judges, social workers, police officers, doctors, nurses, other medical personnel, and other people deprived Plaintiffs of their custodial and familial rights. Plaintiffs allege that they have been unable to see three of their minor children since July 18, 2012, and it appears that Stanislaus County Community Services Agency Family and Children's Services is seeking to remove a fourth child. ( See Doc. 8.) While Plaintiffs' FAC provides significantly more factual background than the initial complaint, it is difficult to discern the precise claims Plaintiffs are seeking to raise against what Defendants and the factual allegations that support those claims.

In general, Plaintiffs allege one of their minor children was taken to the hospital by L. Hankins (presumably Defendant Leah Hankins), who was eventually granted temporary custody of three of the minor children. There are also allegations regarding visits the Defendant social workers made to the Plaintiffs' home; the impropriety of various judicial proceedings and trials, including claims of legal malpractice and perjury; false police reports; removal of minor children; drug use and rehabilitation by Plaintiffs; findings that the family had been living in a storage shed; and assertions that at least one of the minor children had been given "unnecessary medication" and "illegal spinal taps." ( See generally Doc. 8.)

Plaintiffs assert the following "issues" in their FAC:

1. Defendants have violated the plaintiffs[] fourth amendment right to be secure in their place, person, and home of warrantless searches or seizures without probable cause or reasonable suspension [sic].
2. Defendants have violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.
3. Defendants have violated the due process clause of the ninth and fourteenth amendments.
4. Defendants have withheld exculpatory evidence, falsified court and medical records, endangered children's lives, conspired to remove children from parental custody without a warrant, reasonable suspicion or exigent circumstances.
5. Defendants have conspired to deprive plaintiffs of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
6. Defendants have conspired to deprive plaintiffs of their right to the care, custody and management of their children.
7. Defendants have deprived plaintiffs of their right to freedom and familial association.
8. Defendants have performed illegal spinal taps on [K.M.R.H.[1], and given [K.M.R.H.] unnecessary medication in a[n] attempt to cause harm to him, to kidnap him under the color of law and in order to commit fraud on the United States Government.

(Doc. 8, p. 5.) Plaintiffs pray for the "safe return" of three of their minor children, "relief from the continued harassment by Stanislaus County and the State of California, " that "justice be done and the criminals responsible for this horrible actions [sic] be charged and held responsible for their acts, " punitive relief in the amount of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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