Nese v. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

Background

Alper Nese, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition seeking a court order and an emergency stay, along with an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court found that his affidavit showed a lack of financial resources and granted that application.

Nese sought to cancel a May 22, 2025 order from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, authorizing Minhee Chang to travel internationally with their minor son. He also asked the federal court to stop all state-court proceedings involving the child. The opinion says that Nese and Chang appeared to be divorcing and had disputes involving their son.

Court’s Analysis

Because the court granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, it was required to screen the petition. Screening requires dismissal if a filing is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

The court applied the Rooker-Feldman rule, which prevents lower federal courts from reviewing state-court decisions. The rule applies to both final and temporary state-court decisions, including decisions involving federal constitutional issues. The court noted that federal courts commonly lack jurisdiction to review state-court orders concerning family and custody matters.

The court concluded that Nese directly challenged the state court’s travel order and sought to stop related state proceedings. It therefore determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide the case. The court also stated that an exception for claims alleging that a third party obtained a state-court ruling through fraud did not apply because Nese directly challenged the state court’s decision.

Disposition

The court dismissed the case without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. The Clerk was directed to close the file. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order on June 6, 2025.