Garsiyya-Bey v. Family Court of Delaware Inc. et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM ORDER: Defendants Dybowski and Smith-Hagans' Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 8 ) is GRANTED. The claims against Defendants Family Court of Delaware Inc., Judge Joelle Patricia Hitch, and the State of Delaware must likewise be dismissed. The Court shall give Plaintiff 14 days from the issuance of this Order to file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (D.I. 12 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Court Order and Request for Remedy for Procedural Violations and Parental Alienation (D.I. 25 ) is DENIED. (See Order for complete details). Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 1/28/2025. ***Copy mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff 1/28/2025*** (ceg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
YASMINTHERESA GARSIYYA-BEY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
) C.A. No. 24-526 (JLH)
)
FAMILY COURT OF DELAWARE INC., )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
1.

Plaintiff Yasmintheresa Garsiyya-Bey, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint on

April 29, 2024, against Defendants Family Court of Delaware Inc., Judge Joelle Patricia Hitch,
Marta M. Dybowski, Couper Smith-Hagans, and the State of Delaware. (D.I. 1.) Plaintiff alleges
that, in 2021, Defendant Judge Joelle Patricia Hitch of the Family Court of the State of Delaware
awarded custody of Plaintiff’s child to Defendant Smith-Hagans, the birth father. Defendant
Dybowski was Defendant Smith-Hagans’ attorney in the custody proceedings. Defendant SmithHagans now lives with the child in California.
2.

Defendants Dybowski and Smith-Hagans moved to dismiss the case as frivolous.

(D.I. 8.) Plaintiff then filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and, subsequently, Plaintiff filed
an Amended Complaint. (D.I. 12, 19.) Then, on January 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion styled,
“Motion to Enforce Court Order and Request for Remedy for Procedural Violations and Parental
Alienation.” (D.I. 25.)
3.

Defendants Dybowski and Smith-Hagans’ Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 8) is

GRANTED. Neither the Complaint nor the Amended Complaint states a federal claim against
Dybowski or Smith-Hagans. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges that she is entitled to relief

for various violations of her Constitutional Rights (D.I. 19 at 2–3 (Counts 1 and 3)), but neither
Dybowski nor Smith-Hagans are state actors; thus, they cannot be sued for violating 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, the Fifth Amendment, or the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
committed “Obstruction of Justice” (Count 2), but that is not a civil claim that Plaintiff can bring
in federal court; private parties like Plaintiff cannot enforce criminal statutes in court.
4.

The claims against Defendants Family Court of Delaware Inc., Judge Joelle Patricia

Hitch, and the State of Delaware must likewise be dismissed. The record reflects that Plaintiff is
plainly disappointed with the outcome of the child custody proceedings, but the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine prevents this Court from reviewing Delaware state court judgments. Van Tassel v. Hodge,
565 F. App’x 135, 139 (3d Cir. 2014). What’s more, to the extent Plaintiff suggests that the manner
in which her child was removed from her custody violated her constitutional rights under the First,
Fourth, and Eighth Amendments, there are a number of problems with Plaintiff’s argument, not
the least of which is that Plaintiff alleges that the her child was removed by state officials in New
York.
5.

All claims alleged in the Complaint and Amended Complaint are DISMISSED.

Out of an abundance of caution, Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file a second amended
complaint to attempt to remedy the deficiencies discussed above. The Court shall give Plaintiff
fourteen (14) days from the issuance of this Order to file a second amended complaint. If Plaintiff
chooses to file an amended complaint, it will wholly replace the Complaint (D.I. 1) and the
Amended Complaint (D.I. 19). Plaintiff should be advised that filing an amended complaint that
fails to remedy the above-discussed deficiencies will likely result in dismissal with prejudice.

2

Alternatively, if Plaintiff chooses not to timely file an amended complaint, and instead takes no
further action, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice and this case will be closed.
6.

As the Court has dismissed the Complaint and the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s

Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (D.I. 12) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Court
Order and Request for Remedy for Procedural Violations and Parental Alienation (D.I. 25) is
likewise DENIED.

January 28, 2025
The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall
United States District Judge

3