Wilson v. Wilson

Background

Michael Geary Wilson, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Jami Caroline Wilson and others. He alleged that his former wife and others associated with her had deprived him of the companionship and affection of his daughter since 2010. Although the complaint mentioned several California Penal Code provisions, it asserted one claim under California Civil Code Section 49, which prohibits the “abduction or enticement of a child from a parent, or from a guardian entitled to its custody.”

Wilson also applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the court’s filing fee. He stated that he had not been employed since 2013, had no assets of value, and had debts.

Court’s analysis

The court granted Wilson’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee because he met the financial qualification for that status. The court then screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which allows dismissal of an IFP complaint that fails to state a claim. The court applied the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The court held that Wilson had not stated a claim under Section 49. It explained that California courts limit that statute to the specific conduct listed in it, including abduction or enticement of a child. The court found no plausible allegation that Wilson’s daughter had been kidnapped or enticed. Instead, the complaint focused on alleged interference with Wilson’s relationship with and access to his daughter, which the court said is not a recognized cause of action under California law.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Wilson could file an amended complaint consistent with the order by June 22, 2020. The order states that failure to file by that date would result in dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Judge Donato signed the order on May 12, 2020.