BROWN v. BRYANT
Filing
2
OPINION. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 11/14/2011. (mmh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
KENDRA BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
LAURA BRYANT,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-3124 (MLC)
O P I N I O N
THE PLAINTIFF, who is pro se, applies for in-forma-pauperis
relief under 28 U.S.C. § (“Section”) 1915 (“Application”).
entry no. 1, Appl.)
(Dkt.
This Court, based upon the plaintiff’s
financial situation, will (1) grant the Application, and (2) deem
the Complaint to be filed.
The Court may now (1) review the
Complaint, and (2) dismiss it sua sponte if it is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,
or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Court will
dismiss the Complaint, as it (1) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted, and (2) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.
THE DEFENDANT is an attorney with the New Jersey Office of
Parental Representation (“NJOPR”), which is a unit of the New
Jersey Office of the Public Defender (“NJOPD”).
The plaintiff
brings this action (“Federal Action”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that the defendant violated her rights while representing
her in a state proceeding (“State Proceeding”) brought by the New
Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (“NJDYFS”).
dkt. entry no. 1, Compl.)
(See
The Court is able to discern that (1)
the plaintiff was found in the State Proceeding to have neglected
her children, and (2) a judgment was entered therein.
(See id.
at 3 (arguing plaintiff “did not commit neglect and abuse or
imminent danger [sic]”); see also id. at 1 (stating “outcome” was
“decision of ‘Guilty’ by Judge Cantor”); id. at 2 (stating there
was “trial”, and “Plaintiff was found unfortunately ‘guilty’”);
id. at 3 (referring to “Guilty verdict” in State Proceeding).)
The plaintiff alleges that the negative outcome in the State
Proceeding resulted from the defendant’s conduct.1
THE PLAINTIFF is attempting to avoid an order in the State
Proceeding.
The proper way to do so is to seek review through
the state appellate process, and then seek certiorari directly to
the United States Supreme Court.
See D.C. Ct. of Apps. v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263
U.S. 413, 414-16 (1923).
THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE prohibits adjudication of an
action where the relief requested would require a federal court
to either determine whether a state court’s decision is wrong or
1
The plaintiff also has brought an action to recover
damages for violations of her constitutional rights against the
NJDYFS employees involved with the State Proceeding. See Brown
v. Meskin, No. 11-3125 (D.N.J.).
2
void that decision, and thus would prevent a state court from
enforcing its orders.
See McAllister v. Allegheny Cnty. Fam.
Div., 128 Fed.Appx. 901, 902 (3d Cir. 2005).
This Court cannot
directly or indirectly review, negate, void, or provide relief
that would invalidate a decision in the State Proceeding.
See
Gass v. DYFS Workers, 371 Fed.Appx. 315, 315-16 (3d Cir. 2010)
(affirming judgment dismissing claim asserted against, among
others, public defender representing plaintiff in parentalrights-termination proceeding brought by NJDYFS, as barred by
Rooker-Feldman doctrine).
THIS COURT also must abstain from exercising jurisdiction,
pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine, when (1) a state
court action is ongoing, (2) important state interests are
implicated, and (3) there is an adequate opportunity to raise
federal claims in state court.
See Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm.
v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435 (1982); Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971).
This Federal Action is thus
barred because the State Proceeding can be viewed as being
“ongoing for purposes of Younger Abstention”, as (1) Brown “could
have appealed the termination of [her] parental rights first to
the Appellate Division and then to the New Jersey Supreme Court”,
but “elected to forgo these appeals and instead file the instant
federal claim”, (2) the state has a substantial interest in
parental rights proceedings, and (3) Brown had an opportunity to
3
raise constitutional claims in the State Proceeding.
McDaniels
v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs., 144 Fed.Appx. 213, 214-16
(3d Cir. 2005) (affirming judgment dismissing claim of
constitutional violations committed in parental-rightstermination proceeding).
THE DEFENDANT, who represented the Plaintiff in the State
Proceeding in her capacity as an attorney with the NJOPR, which
is a unit of the NJOPD, is also immune from liability.
See Polk
County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (stating public
defender is not state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
thus is immune from liability); Santos v. New Jersey, 393
Fed.Appx. 893, 895 (3d Cir. 2010) (same).
THE COURT will dismiss the Complaint for the aforementioned
reasons.
The Court will issue an appropriate order and judgment.
s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Dated:
November 14, 2011
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?