1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALIVIA BLOUNT, Case No. 25-cv-02211-JSW

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

9 v. RECOMMENDATION AND

JUDGMENT

10 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FAMILY COURT, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 6 11 Defendants.

12 13 This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim’s 14 report and recommendation (“Report”), in which she recommends the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s 15 Complaint, without prejudice to refiling in state court. Plaintiff objects to the Report (Dkt. No. 7). 16 She also has filed an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 11). The Court has considered the Report, 17 each of Plaintiff’s filings in this case, and relevant legal authority. 18 Plaintiff brings this putative civil rights action against the Contra Costa County Family and 19 Superior Courts, Contra Costa County, and Judge Gina Dashman. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of 20 visitation and custody disputes. In one of her most recent filings, Plaintiff states that she has been 21 unsuccessfully attempting to file motions in those proceedings to hold the child’s father in 22 contempt. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 11.)1 23 Judge Kim recommended dismissing the matter against Judge Dashman based on judicial 24 immunity. Plaintiff objects on the basis that Judge Dashman’s actions were administrative. An 25 act is considered “judicial” when it is a function normally performed by a judge and the parties 26 dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity. See Stump v. Starkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362 (1978). 27 1 To determine if an individual acted in an official judicial capacity, a court must analyze 2 whether: “(1) the precise act is a normal judicial function; (2) the events occurred in the judge’s 3 chambers; (3) the controversy centered around a case then pending before the judge; and (4) the 4 events at issue arose directly and immediately out of a confrontation with the judge in his or her 5 official capacity.” Id. (citation omitted). Plaintiff alleges Judge Dashman failed to issue a written 6 order. The Court finds Judge Kim’s reasoning through and overrules Plaintiff’s objections to 7 dismissing the claims against Judge Dashman. The Court also has considered the allegations in 8 Plaintiff’s amended complaint and the other materials she has filed and concludes the allegations 9 still show Judge Dashman would be entitled to judicial immunity. (See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 8- 10 9, 15, 18-19; see also Dkt. No. 16.) 11 Plaintiff also sued Contra Costa County and the Family Court. Judge Kim also 12 recommended dismissing the case based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine reasoning that Plaintiff 13 asks to reverse state court orders. Plaintiff argues she is only challenging “unconstitutional 14 procedures in the enforcement of a restraining order,” citing Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 15 1136, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2004). (Objections at 3:5-7.) The Court does not find Plaintiff’s reliance 16 on Kougasian persuasive. First, Plaintiff does not allege that the state court judgments were 17 procured by fraud on the courts. Second, the wrongs alleged in her Complaint are based on Judge 18 Dashman’s failure to issue a written order or other judicial actions. For that reason, the Court 19 concludes Judge Kim’s decision was well-reasoned. 20 Plaintiff’s additional filings do not alter the Court’s conclusion. Plaintiff continues to 21 argue Judge Dashman did not issue a written order and has continued to enforce an expired 22 restraining order. Plaintiff also now alleges she has been denied access to the court by those 23 decisions, by “systemic delays”, and by the failure to accept motions to hold her ex-partner in 24 contempt. (Amended Complaint ¶¶ 10.c, 18; see also Dkt. Nos. 21-22.)2 25 Finally, assuming Plaintiff’s claims are not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the 26 Court still finds dismissal is warranted. Judge Kim also recommended abstaining based on 27 ] Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). A court is required to abstain under Younger when “(1) the 2 || state proceedings are ongoing; (11) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (111) the 3 state proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions.” Delta Dental Plan 4 || of Cal. Inc. v. Mendoza, 139 F.3d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1988) internal citations and quotations 5 omitted). 6 Plaintiff does not suggest the state court proceedings have concluded, and her filings 7 || suggest otherwise. She also does not dispute that the state custody proceedings implicate 8 important state interests. See, e.g., H.C. v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000). Finally, the 9 || Court concludes Plaintiff's arguments regarding her inability to file the motion for contempt and 10 || the other issues raised in her amended complaint do not demonstrate she lacks an adequate 11 opportunity to present her constitutional claims in the state proceedings. See, e.g., id. at 612-614. 12 Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and dismisses the case without prejudice to 13 || raising these issues in the state court proceedings. This Order shall operate as the judgment and 14 || the Clerk shall close the file.

15 IT IS SO ORDERED. || Dated: April 7, 2025 (i | / he 4 ag JEPEREY)S WHIT United Jtes Distr, Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28