Huskey et al v. French et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying as moot Huskey's Motions - 1 , 3 , 8 , 9 , and 10 . Huskey's complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 10/28/2014. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
ROBYN HUSKEY, Mother on Behalf of
Abbygale Dawn Huskey and JANICE
MARIE, Grandmother

v.

PLAINTIFFS

No. 5:14-cv-369-DPM

THERESA FRENCH, Judge, Drew CountyArkansas
Circuit Court Juvenile Division; BILL HUSKEY,
Paternal Grandfather; JEREMY LOUIS HUSKEY,
Father of Minor; KATHY JOHNSTON; JERE
JOHNSTON; MARGIE SAVAGE; CHARLES
SYNDNEY GIBSON, Attorney for Kathy Johnston
and Billy Johnston; CHUCK GIBSON, Attorney for
Kathy Johnston and Billy Johnston; DENISE MCMILLAN,
Attorney for Robyn Huskey and Janice Marie;
SANDRA BRADSHAW; BARBARA WRIGHTLANGHAMMER; BYNUM GIBSON, Judge, Drew County
Arkansas Circuit Court; DON GLOVER, Judge, Drew
County Arkansas Circuit Court; and KENNETH
JOHNSON, Judge, Drew County Arkansas
Circuit Court
DEFENDANTS

ORDER
1. The mother and grandmother of a child entangled in a bitter custody
dispute have filed a voluminous complaint against many people, including
several Arkansas judges involved in some way in the case. The mother and
grandmother ask this Court to change custody of the child, remove the
presiding Arkansas circuit court judge, and transfer the case to a different

circuit court. The custody issue seems to be on appeal, subject to the circuit
court's continuing jurisdiction.
2. To the extent the mother and grandmother, having lost in state court,
seek to take what is essentially an appeal of the state trial court's custody and
recusal decisions to this federal court, no jurisdiction exists here. Exxon Mobil
Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280,291-92 (2005). To the extent

they're asking this federal court to order that things be done (recusal and
transfer) and undone (custody) in a pending state proceeding, the AntiInjunction Act prevents such an order. 28 U.S.C. § 2283; Vendo Co. v. Lektro
Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623,630 (1977). Again, no jurisdiction. Even if this Court

has jurisdiction, prudence, principles of federalism, and Arkansas's interest
in child custody issues dictate that this Court abstain from interfering with
ongoing state proceedings where the parties are present and fully able to
litigate all issues. Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 11 (1987).
3. The Court sees no way to redact all the confidential information in the
complaint, its attachments, the three compact discs, or the recent motions.
FED.

R. CIV. P. 5.2(d). They'll all therefore remain sealed.

***

-2-

Huskey's motions-Ng 1, 3, 8, 9, & 10-are denied as moot. Huskey's
complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr. f
United States District Judge

-3-