Doe

Doe v. Mann

Good Law
285 F. Supp. 2d 1229·2003 WL 22255820·2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17959
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 29, 2003C 02-3448 MHPCalifornia7,127 words

Opinion

Opinion

Patel, J.

Plaintiff Mary Doe (“Doe”) brings an action against defendants Arthur Mann and Robert L. Crone, Jr. in their official capacity as California Superior Court judges, Lake County Superior Court’s Juvenile Division, Mr. and Mrs. D., and the Department of Social Services of Lake County (“DSS”). Doe alleges that the state child custody proceedings involving her daughter, Jane Doe (“Jane”), violated the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”), 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq., the Due Process Clause, and state child custody law. Now before the court are two separate motions, one brought by Mann, Crone and the Superior Court (collectively “state court defendants”) and the other by DSS, to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Mr. and Mrs. D, Jane’s adoptive parents, join in both motions. Having considered the arguments presented, and for the reasons set forth below, the court rules as follows. BACKGROUND

Doe is a member of the Elem Indian Colony in Lake County, California. Her daughter Jane is also eligible for tribal membership. Except for two brief periods, Jane lived on…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.