Wood v. County of Contra Costa
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:19-cv-07124
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Wood v. County of Contra Costa, Judge Chesney ordered Andrea C. Wood to explain why her RICO case should not be dismissed.
Andrea C. Wood, whose RICO complaint faced possible dismissal, and the defendants named in the complaint.
What happened
In Wood v. County of Contra Costa, Andrea C. Wood alleged that state court judges, county employees, attorneys, and others conspired to remove two of her children from her custody.
Wood brought one claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. The court said the claim was essentially the same as one Wood brought in an earlier related proceeding, which the court had dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and declined to consider because of ongoing state proceedings.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney ordered Wood to show cause in writing by November 27, 2019, why the case should not be dismissed without leave to amend and without prejudice. The order directed Wood to respond; it did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Wood v. County of Contra Costa · No. 3:19-cv-07124
- Maxine Chesney
- Nov. 8, 2019
Background
Andrea C. Wood alleged that two state court judges, seven other individuals, and Contra Costa County participated in a conspiracy to cause a state court to remove two of her children from her custody. She alleged that the county's Department of Family and Child Services removed the children and began dependency proceedings in state court. Her allegations included claims that individuals made false reports, fabricated evidence, coached witnesses, committed perjury, interfered with her evidence and witnesses, and otherwise affected the state court proceedings.
Claim
Wood asserted one cause of action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly called RICO. The defendants named in the allegations included the County, two state court judges, county social workers, attorneys, and two individuals identified as neighbors.
Court's analysis
The court stated that the RICO claim was, in all material respects, identical to the claim Wood asserted in an earlier related proceeding, Case No. 19-4266. The differences were that the current complaint removed one defendant, added Dr. Ravinder Bains, and alleged that the Bains were being paid substantial amounts to foster one of Wood's children.
The court said that, in the earlier related proceeding, it had dismissed the RICO claim and the other claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine generally prevents a federal district court from reviewing a state-court judgment. The court also said it had declined to consider the RICO claim under the Younger doctrine, which concerns federal-court abstention from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings. Based on the reasons given in the earlier order, the court found that the current action was barred by both doctrines.
Disposition
The court did not immediately dismiss the case. Instead, it ordered Wood to show cause in writing, no later than November 27, 2019, why the action should not be dismissed without leave to amend and without prejudice. The opinion therefore records an order requiring a response, rather than a final dismissal in this order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.