Miao v. LaCampagne

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 7 — 8 ZHUO QUAN MIAO, Case No. 25-cv-06784-CRB 9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IFP MOTION; 10 v. DENYING MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 11 DANIELLE LACAMPAGNE, et al., ORDER; ABSTAINING UNDER COLORADO RIVER DOCTRINE 12 Defendants. 13 Plaintiff Zhou Quan Miao filed a pro se complaint and application to proceed in 14 forma pauperis. See Compl. (dkt. 1); IFP App. (dkt. 2). 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a) authorizes 15 the Court to permit a plaintiff to file a federal lawsuit without prepayment of fees or 16 security so long as the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he is unable to pay the 17 fees or give security. Plaintiff states that he has no income, $8,000 in assets, and $600 in 18 monthly expenses. IFP App. ¶¶ 1–2, 7–8. Based on this information, the Court finds that 19 Plaintiff has demonstrated that he is unable to pay the filing fee and GRANTS his IFP 20 application. 21 The IFP statute further requires the Court to screen Plaintiff’s complaint and 22 dismiss the case if, among other things, the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 23 state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). Plaintiff contends 24 that Defendants, California officials, have acted unconstitutionally with respect to a 25 conservatorship dispute. Compl. at 5–6. Accordingly, Plaintiff asks the Court to declare 26 Defendants’ conduct unconstitutional, id. at 7 ; Plaintiff also seeks a temporary restraining 27 order enjoining Defendants from continuing conservatorship proceedings until they 1 Plaintiffs’ claims are not properly before this Court, however, under the doctrine of 2 Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). There, 3 the Supreme Court instructed that where there are concurrent state and federal 4 proceedings, federal courts should consider certain factors in deciding whether to abstain. 5 These factors include “(1) whether either court has assumed jurisdiction over a res; (2) the 6 relative convenience of the forums; (3) the desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation; 7 (4) the order in which the forums obtained jurisdiction; (5) whether state or federal law 8 controls; and (6) whether the state proceeding is adequate to protect the parties’ interest.” 9 Estate of Groper v. County of Santa Cruz, No. C-93-20925 RPA, 1994 WL 680041 , at *4 10 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 1994). All of these factors point in favor of abstention here. And courts 11 typically abstain in collateral federal challenges to state-court conservatorship disputes. 12 See, e.g., id.; Kawecki ex rel. Marlowe v. County of Macomb, 367 F. Supp. 2d 1137 , 13 1149–50 (E.D. Mich. 2005). 14 Accordingly, the Court ABSTAINS from this action and DENIES Plaintiff’s 15 request for a temporary restraining order. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: August 19, 2025 CHARLES R. BREYER 18 United States District Judge — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 —