Wittman
Wittman v. Saenz
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Appellant Charles Wittman appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint (“Complaint”) against twenty-nine state and local government employees and agencies under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.
The district court entered two orders in this case. In the first order, the district court dismissed Wittmaris claims against Judge Edwards and Commissioner McCarthy on the ground that they enjoyed absolute judicial immunity. It also dismissed Wittmaris challenges to the juvenile dependency proceedings because it held that Wittman lacked standing to challenge the juvenile court’s determination that he was not entitled to de facto parental status. In the second order, the court dismissed all of Wittmaris remaining claims. In dismissing Wittmaris claims, the district court held that Wittman failed to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6) because he had not alleged a constitutional right to associate with the Mah children. The court did not, however, address whether Wittman had alleged a constitutional right to associate with his fiancé, Kelly Lynn Mah.