Allaf-Motedayen v. Sonoma County Child Protective Services
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:25-cv-03050
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Allaf-Motedayen v. Sonoma County Child Protective Services, Judge Chesney denied a request to stop or review an ongoing state criminal proceeding.
Farzad Allaf-Motedayen’s request for emergency federal intervention was denied. The order concerned his ongoing state criminal proceeding and the state court actions he challenged.
What happened
In Allaf-Motedayen v. Sonoma County Child Protective Services, Farzad Allaf-Motedayen filed a second amended complaint after the court dismissed his amended complaint and allowed him to amend. He was representing himself.
He also asked for immediate federal intervention, a protective order, and review of state actions connected to an ongoing criminal proceeding. He challenged the suspension of the state proceedings under California Penal Code section 1368 and the appointment of a public defender without his consent.
Judge Chesney treated the filing as a request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction and denied it. The court said federal courts generally must not stop a parallel state criminal case and cannot directly review state-court decisions. The court noted that it would separately screen the second amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Allaf-Motedayen v. Sonoma County Child Protective Services · No. 3:25-cv-03050
- Maxine Chesney
- June 2, 2025
Background
In an earlier order, the court dismissed Farzad Allaf-Motedayen’s amended complaint and allowed him to file another complaint. On May 29, 2025, Allaf-Motedayen filed a second amended complaint. The opinion states that a separate order would screen that complaint to determine whether it stated a legally cognizable claim.
Allaf-Motedayen, who was representing himself, also filed a document titled “Scroll of Emergency Federal Protection and Judicial Review.” The filing concerned an ongoing criminal proceeding in state court. He requested immediate federal intervention, a protective order, and review of state actions beginning April 9, 2025. He specifically challenged the state court’s suspension of the proceeding under California Penal Code section 1368 and its appointment of a public defender without his consent.
Request and Court’s Reasoning
The court construed the filing as a motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. These are requests for urgent court orders that temporarily restrict conduct or preserve a situation while a case continues.
The court denied the motion because federal courts must refrain from stopping a parallel, pending state criminal proceeding. The court also stated that federal district courts have no authority to directly review state-court decisions.
Disposition
Judge Maxine Chesney denied Allaf-Motedayen’s request for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. The order addressed that request; it did not decide whether the second amended complaint stated a cognizable claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.