SEVERINO v. DIVISION OF YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES et al
Filing
5
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 11/14/2011. (eaj)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
WILLIAM F. SEVERINO, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
DIVISION OF YOUTH & FAMILY
SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-3767 (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 is frivolous and fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.1
THE DEFENDANTS in this action (“Federal Action”) are (1) the
New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (“NJDYFS”), (2)
1
The plaintiff is no stranger to pro se litigation. See,
e.g., Severino v. Boro.Sayreville, No. 10-5707 (D.N.J.); Severino
v. Sayreville Police Dept., No. 10-2762 (D.N.J.).
a NJDYFS caseworker (“Caseworker”), (3) two New Jersey Superior
Court judges (“State Court Judges”), (4) a deputy attorney
general (“DAG”), (5) 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”) (hereinafter, the
aforementioned attorney will be referred to as “NJOPR Attorney”),
(6) an attorney supervisor assigned to either the NJOPD or the
NJOPR alone (“Attorney Supervisor”), and (7) a private attorney
(“Pool Attorney”) once assigned to represent the plaintiff.
(See
dkt. entry no. 1, Compl.)
THE PLAINTIFF brings the Federal Action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging that the defendants conspired to violate his
constitutional rights by instituting a state proceeding (“State
Proceeding”) against him.
(Id. at 1 (alleging “conspiracy,
wicked as the worst of felons could devise, has gone un-whipped
of justice”).)
allegations:
The Court is able to discern the following
(1) the Caseworker investigated the plaintiff for
abuse and neglect of a child (“Child”), (2) the DAG prosecuted
the plaintiff, (3) the NJOPR Attorney represented the Child’s
mother, (4) the Pool Attorney represented the plaintiff, but was
part of the conspiracy to deprive him of his parental rights, (5)
the Attorney Supervisor conspired to assist the NJOPR Attorney,
(6) the plaintiff was found in the State Proceeding to have
neglected the Child, and (7) the State Court Judges entered
2
against the plaintiff (a) judgments terminating his parental
rights, and (b) restraining orders.
(See generally Compl.)
THE PLAINTIFF is attempting to avoid orders 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
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 state court
judge, NJDYFS, NJDYFS officials, deputy attorneys general, and
NJOPD attorney representing plaintiff in action concerning
parental-rights-termination proceeding, as barred by RookerFeldman doctrine).
THIS COURT also must abstain from exercising jurisdiction,
pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine, when (1) a state
3
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) the plaintiff
“could have appealed the termination of his 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) the plaintiff had an
opportunity to raise constitutional claims in the State
Proceeding.
See McDaniels v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs.,
144 Fed.Appx. 213, 214-16 (3d Cir. 2005) (affirming judgment
dismissing claim of constitutional violations committed in
parental-rights-termination proceeding).
NJDYFS, as well as the Caseworker, DAG, NJOPR Attorney, and
Attorney Supervisor in their official capacities, also are not
subject to liability here.
See Gass, 371 Fed.Appx. at 316
(affirming judgment dismissing claim asserted against, among
others, NJDYFS, NJDYFS officials, deputy attorneys general, and
NJOPD attorney, as plaintiff could not recover money damages
against such officials).
The Court also can discern nothing in
4
the Complaint showing that the aforementioned individual
defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they
engaged in conduct that violated clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
known, and thus finds that liability cannot attach to them in
their individual capacities.
See id.; see also Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
THE FEDERAL ACTION also insofar as it is brought against the
State Court Judges is barred under the doctrine of immunity, as
the allegations asserted against them concern their judicial
acts.
State court judges cannot be held civilly liable for
judicial acts, even when those acts are in excess of their
jurisdiction and are alleged to have been done maliciously or
corruptly.
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978);
Figueroa v. Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435, 440 (3d Cir. 2000).
TO THE EXTENT that the plaintiff is asserting claims against
the DAG, the NJOPR Attorney, the Attorney Supervisor, and the
Pool Attorney, his claims are also barred, as those defendants
are immune from liability here.
See Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509
U.S. 259, 273 (1993) (concerning prosecutor); Burns v. Reed, 500
U.S. 478, 492 (1991) (same); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409,
431 (1976) (same); see also Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312,
325 (1981) (concerning public defender); Santos v. New Jersey,
393 Fed.Appx. 893, 895 (3d Cir. 2010) (same).
5
TO THE EXTENT that the plaintiff asserts any discernible
allegations concerning a conspiracy on the part of the defendants
to deprive him of federal rights, such allegations appear to be
based on mere speculation and thus are without merit.
See Gera
v. Pennsylvania, 256 Fed.Appx. 563, 565-66 (3d Cir. 2007).
THE PLAINTIFF also seeks emergent relief.
no. 2.)
(See dkt. entry
The Court finds that the plaintiff is unlikely to
succeed on the merits, as the Court is dismissing the Complaint.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 65; see also L.Civ.R. 65.1 (stating no order to
show cause to bring a matter for a hearing will be granted except
on a clear and specific showing of good and sufficient reasons by
the party seeking relief as to why a procedure other than by
notice of motion is necessary).
The application for emergent
relief will be denied.
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
6
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?