Allred v. Harper et al

Filing 7

ORDER regarding: 4 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, but plaintiff's complaint and amended complaint are DISMISSED. Finally, because Allred names her minor children in the caption of her amended complaint, the clerk shall seal Allred's amended complaint [D.E. 6]. The clerk shall close the case. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 7/23/2015. (O'Brien, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DMSION
No. 7:15-CV-117-D

AMY ELIZABETH ALLRED,
Plaintiff,

v.
JANE V. HARPER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

On June 29, 2015, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R") [D.E. 4]. In that M&R, Judge Numbers recommended that plaintiff's application to
proceed in forma pauperis be allowed, and that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
On June 29, 2015, plaintiffrefiled her complaint and its attachments [D.E. 5]. On July 16, 2015,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint [D.E. 6]. The court construes the refiled complaint and the
amended complaint [D.E. 5, 6] as objections to the M&R.
"The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of
those portions of the magistrate judge's report or specified proposed fmdings or recommendations
towhichobjectionismade." Diamond v. Colonial Life &Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (alteration, emphasis, and quotation omitted). Absent a timely objection, "a district court
need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on
the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Id. (quotation omitted).
Amy Elizabeth Allred ("Allred" or "plaintiff'), an attorney proceeding pro se, seeks to
recover compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 from five North Carolina
district court judges who presided over various aspects ofher child custody proceedings. Allred also

seeks an injunction nullifying a state-court order directing Allred to undergo a substance abuse
assessment, a mental health evaluation, and the appointment of a guardian ad litem, and nullifying
all state-court orders regarding the custody ofher children and the termination ofher parental rights.
The court has reviewed the objections and the M&R de novo. The court does not adopt the
M&R' s discussion of the domestic relations exception. That exception derives from construction
of the diversity jurisdiction statute (28 U.S.C. § 1332). SeeAnkenbrandtv. Richards, 504 U.S. 689,
700-01 (1992). Thus, the domestic relations exception "is applied only as a judicially implied
limitation on diversity jurisdiction; it has no ... application as a limitation on federal question
jurisdiction." United States v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 476,481 (4th Cir. 1997); see Atwood v. Fort Peck
Tribal Court Assiniboine, 513 F.3d 943, 947 (9th Cir. 2008). Because Allred bases her complaint
on federal question jurisdiction by invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the domestic
relations exception does not limit this court's subject-matter jurisdiction.
Nonetheless, defendants (who are all state-court judges sued for actions taken in their judicial
capacities) are entitled to immunity from damages in their individual and official capacities. See,
~'Rehberg v.

Pamk, 132 S. Ct. 1497, 1503 (2012); Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S.

425,429 (1997); Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,71 (1989); Stump v. Sparkmm1,
435 U.S. 349, 356-64 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967); King v. Myers, 973
F.2d354,356-58(4thCir.1992). Moreover, theRooker-Feldmandoctrineprecludesthiscourtfrom
sitting in review of the state-court orders and nullifying them. See, ~' Johnson v. De Grandy, 512
U.S. 997, 1005-{)6 (1994); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldmm1, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983); Adkins
v. Rumsfeld, 464 F .3d 456, 463--64 (4th Cir. 2006); Washington v. Wilmore, 407 F.3d 274, 279 (4th
Cir. 2005).
In sum, plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, but plaintiff's

2

complaint and amended complaint are DISMISSED. Finally, because Allred names her minor
children in the caption of her amended complaint, the clerk shall seal Allred's amended complaint
[D.E. 6]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2. The clerk shall close the case.
SO ORDERED. This j,J_ day of July 2015.

Chief United States District Judge

3