Padin v. J.P.

Background

Margaret Depass Padin, representing herself, filed an “emergency petition” concerning her former husband’s alleged move with their son from New York to California in mid-2015 and his alleged prevention of contact. She named J. P. and Mark Padin as defendants. Her complaint sought termination of the father’s parental rights, partial emancipation of J. P., and a federal writ ordering that J. P. be released into her care.

Padin also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. She stated that she had been unemployed since late March, had no assets of value, and had debts.

Court’s analysis

The court granted the application to proceed without paying the filing fee because Padin met the financial qualification for that status. It then screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which permits dismissal of a qualifying complaint that fails to state a claim for relief. The court applied the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, while construing a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally.

The court held that Padin’s requests to terminate parental rights and modify custody fell within the domestic-relations exception to federal jurisdiction. That exception prevents federal courts from issuing divorce, alimony, and child-custody decrees. The court also held that federal habeas relief is not available to challenge parental rights or child custody.

The court separately concluded that Padin’s first claim did not state a basis for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Mark Padin. Because he was alleged to be a private actor, he could not be sued under that statute without allegations that he acted jointly with the state or state agents, and the complaint did not make such allegations.

As to the second claim, seeking partial emancipation of J. P., the court said it was unclear what legal basis supported the request. The cited California and Nevada provisions did not, even under a liberal reading, relate to emancipation of a minor. The court further held that Padin had not alleged facts establishing her standing—the legal entitlement to bring the claim—on J. P.’s behalf.

The third claim sought a federal habeas writ based on alleged illegal detention by the father. The court held that this claim was barred because federal habeas corpus is not available to challenge parental rights or child custody.

Disposition

The court granted the application to proceed without paying the filing fee. It dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Padin could file an amended complaint consistent with the order by July 15, 2020, and could request an extension if the deadline was not feasible because of the public-health situation. The court stated that failure to respond by that date would result in dismissal of the claims without further leave to amend, and that no new claims or parties could be added without prior court approval.

The court also noted that filings had violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) by repeatedly using J. P.’s full name and by including an unredacted birth date and Social Security numbers. The documents would remain sealed, and the court directed Padin to redact and abbreviate identifying information in future filings or risk having those filings stricken from the docket. Judge James Donato advised Padin to use the appropriate county or state procedures to pursue custody.