Opinion
6:23-cv-00659-MC
05-15-2023
JUDGMENT
MICHAEL MCSHANE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pro se plaintiff Katie Marie Barr filed a complaint against the State of Oregon and several individual supervisors and case agents of the State's child welfare division. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also names her minor children. Plaintiff alleges Defendants improperly conspired to take her children and seeks to have her two minor children “returned to my care and custody.” Id. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Because this Court clearly lacks jurisdiction, it will not require Plaintiff to pay the filing fee and will instead act as if Plaintiff sought leave to proceed IFP. The Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), must screen applications to proceed IFP and dismiss any case that is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
Federal courts generally are prohibited from interfering in issues of domestic relations. This exception specifically applies to issues involving child custody. Andenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703-04 (1992). To the extent Plaintiff seeks to challenge a DHS custody decree, she must make that challenge in state court.
Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff's complaint is an attempt at an end run around state court proceedings, the claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes lower federal courts from hearing claims that collaterally attack prior state court decisions. See Ignacio v. Judges of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 453 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2006); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 & n.16 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923).
As the Complaint fails to state a federal claim, it must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Finally, because the Complaint identifies minors by their full names, the Court directs the clerk to seal Plaintiff's Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.