Soto v. Child Protective Services Department

Background

Elesha Soto filed the case without a lawyer. The complaint concerned the adoption of her biological children by a couple living in Santa Rosa, California. Soto alleged that the children had been removed from their home and adopted, and she sought access to certified copies of their birth certificates.

The complaint named the Child Protective Services Department in Santa Rosa, the Sonoma County Superior Courts, the adoptive parents identified as Tema and Lupita, and Monica Julian, an attorney appointed to represent the minors. An attachment may also have been intended to name two minors as additional plaintiffs. The court noted that minors cannot appear in federal court without a licensed attorney representing them.

Fee-Waiver Application and Screening

The court granted Soto’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. Because she was permitted to proceed without prepaying the fee, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant legally immune from that relief.

Jurisdiction Concerns

The court ordered Soto to show cause—meaning to explain why the case should not be dismissed—because no basis for federal jurisdiction was apparent. The complaint did not identify a federal law supporting the claims, so the court found no apparent federal-question jurisdiction.

The court also addressed diversity jurisdiction, which can allow a federal court to hear state-law claims involving citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is in controversy. The court stated that Soto was a Utah resident and that the defendants appeared to be California citizens, but the complaint did not indicate that the requested access to the birth certificates was worth more than $75,000.

The court separately ordered Soto to show cause concerning the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine generally prevents a federal district court from reviewing or rejecting a state-court judgment. The complaint suggested that Soto might be trying to relitigate a case she lost in a California appellate court.

Failure to State a Claim

The court also concluded that, even if jurisdiction could be established, the complaint did not identify any law giving Soto a right to access the birth certificates. The complaint therefore did not provide the defendants with notice of the legal basis for her claim and appeared not to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Order

The court did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, it ordered Soto to file by January 22, 2021 either an amended complaint or a response arguing that her current complaint was sufficient. The court stated that failure to respond would result in reassignment to a district judge with a recommendation that the case be dismissed. It also continued the case-management conference to March 19, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. The order was signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.