I.H.M

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I.H.M., Case No. 22-cv-06026-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART,

v. DENYING IN PART, THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al., DISMISS Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 108

The motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. This order assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts, governing legal standards, and arguments made by the parties. 1. Rooker-Feldman. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives a district court of jurisdiction “when the plaintiff in federal district court complains of a legal wrong allegedly committed by the state court” and “seeks relief from the judgment of that court.” Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 778 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163 (9th Cir. 2003)). Analyzing whether a claim is barred by Rooker-Feldman requires “close attention to the relief sought by the federal-court plaintiff.” Id. The doctrine should not “sweep too broadly.” Id. Here, I.H.M.’s claims center on the alleged misconduct of her social workers which included putting her in foster homes that they knew to be unsafe…