1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AUSTIN DE TAGLE, et al., Case No. 24-cv-00041-AMO

8 Plaintiffs,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

9 v. RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING

COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO

10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA AMEND

FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,

11 et al., Re: Dkt. No. 6 Defendants. 12 13 The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Virginia K. 14 DeMarchi, which granted Plaintiff Austin de Tagle’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, 15 screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and recommended dismissal on the following 16 grounds:

17 (1) Mr. de Tagle fails to state a cognizable claim for violations of his or his children’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. See 28 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process clause protects the “interest of parents in the 19 care, custody, and control of their children” and “freedom of personal choice in matters of family life.” See Troxel v. Granville, 20 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982). However, these rights are not unlimited. Mr. de Tagle 21 refers to a state court order that requires him to pay child support, but he fails to allege any conduct by defendants that constitutes a 22 violation of his or his children’s substantive due process rights. See Dkt. No. 5 at 4-5. 23 (2) To the extent Mr. de Tagle seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 24 against Judge Hendrickson, his claims should be dismissed because the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and 25 seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), (iii); Forrester v. White, 26 484 U.S. 219, 226-27 (1988); Dkt. No. 5 at 3-5.

27 (3) To the extent Mr. de Tagle seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which relief may be granted and seeks monetary relief against a 1 defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. $$ 1915(e)(2)(B) Gi), (ii); Simmons v. Sacramento Cnty. Superior 2 Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003); Dkt. No. 5 at 3-5. Additionally, these claims should be dismissed for lack of subject 3 matter jurisdiction. See Freeman v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 179 4 F.3d 846, 847 (9th Cir. 1999). (4) To the extent Mr. de Tagle asks the Court to order Judge 5 Hendrickson’s impeachment, his complaint should be dismissed because it fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, 6 California judicial officers can only be impeached through the process established by state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) ai); 7 Dkt. No. 5 at 4. 8 || ECF 6 at 2-3. 9 No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed, and the deadline to do 10 so has passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (deadline for objections is fourteen days after being 11 served). The Court finds the Report and Recommendation correct, well-reasoned, and thorough, a 12 and adopts it in every respect. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the complaint for the reasons

13 set forth in the Report and Recommendation. Because Mr. de Tagle has challenged the state court

v 14 proceedings raised in this action in at least two other cases, which have also been dismissed, see © 15 de Tagle v. Superior Court of County of Santa Clara, No. 5:23-cv-05137-BLF (filed Oct. 6, 2023, a 16 dismissed Nov. 10, 2023); de Tagle v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. 5:23-cv-05174

= 17 (filed Oct. 10, 2023, dismissed Oct. 30, 2023), dismissal WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND is

18 appropriate. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: April 15, 2024 21 □□ 7 22 col

ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN

3 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28