Rossman v. State of Ohio et al
Filing
18
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Accordingly, this action is dismissed under section 1915(e). Further, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 4/29/14. (LC,S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
BELINDA SOSERAY ROSSMAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF OHIO, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:14 CV 650
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
On March 25, 2014, Plaintiff pro se Belinda Soseray Rossman filed this action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Ohio, Crawford County, Mid-Ohio Educational Services
Center, Crawford County Job and Family Services, Steven Helbert, Michael Wiener, Geoffrey
Stoll, Beth McGowan, Brandy Gandaert, Dustin Staffer, Kathy Zaita, Bobby Jo Carr, Holly
Weir, and Shane Leuthold. Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that she has been the subject of
criminal investigations, and that she was separated from her children for a nine-month period.
After the children were returned to her custody, there have been unscheduled home visits, as
well as threats of imprisonment and foster care. The Complaint seeks an order from this Court
to prevent contact by the Crawford County Court with the children’s father, and to compel the
Crawford County Prosecutor to provide discovery materials.
Plaintiff filed a Memo to Judge (ECF # 13) in this case on April 23, 2014, to which she
attached a Notice of Hearing from the Crawford County Juvenile Court - scheduled for May 14,
2014 - concerning custody of Plaintiff’s children. The Memo reiterates her request for an order
concerning discovery, and asserts it is unreasonable to compel her presence for the state court
hearing. It also seeks an order from this Court providing Plaintiff an extension of time to prepare
a defense in the Crawford County Juvenile Court.
A federal court must decline to interfere with pending state proceedings involving
important state interests unless extraordinary circumstances are present. See Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37, 44–45 (1971). A party to an ongoing state action involving important state matters
cannot disrupt the pending state action by maintaining a parallel federal action involving claims
that could have been raised in the state case. Watts v. Burkhart, 854 F.2d 839, 844–48 (6th
Cir.1988). Based on these principles, abstention is appropriate if state proceedings are on-going,
the state proceedings implicate important state interests, and the state proceedings afford an
adequate opportunity to raise federal questions. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden
State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432, (1982). Abstention is mandated whether the state court
proceeding is criminal, quasi-criminal, or civil in nature as long as federal court intervention
“unduly interferes with the legitimate activities of the State.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 44.
Abstention is required in this case. The issues presented are clearly the subject of the
child custody matter pending in the Ohio court, and Plaintiff is asking this Court to exercise
jurisdiction in that case. For this Court to do so would unduly interfere with the pending state
court action. In addition, matters of child custody are of paramount state interest, See Moore v.
Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 435 (1979); Kelm v. Hyatt, 44 F.3d 415, 420 (6th Cir.1995); Zak v. Pilla,
698 F.2d 800 (6th Cir.1982); Firestone v. Cleveland Trust Co., 654 F.2d 1212 (6th Cir.1981);
Parker v. Turner, 626 F.2d 1 (6th Cir.1980).1 Plaintiff has not set forth facts reasonably
1
See also Hughes v. Hamann, No. 00–4132, 2001 WL 1356143 (6th Cir. Oct.25,
2001); Myers v. Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, No. 99–4411, 2001
WL 1298942 (6th Cir. Aug.7, 2001); Jancuk v. Donofrio, No. 97–4404, 1999 WL
(continued...)
-2-
suggesting the Ohio courts cannot or will not provide adequate opportunity for her to raise her
constitutional claims. This Court is therefore required to abstain from assuming jurisdiction over
the Crawford County Juvenile Court proceedings.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed under section 1915(e). Further, the Court certifies,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good
faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Patricia A.Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: 4/29/14
1
(...continued)
313903 (6th Cir. May 4, 1999) (determining abstention to be appropriate for
pending domestic relations matter); Guess v. Hocking County Childrens Services
Bd., No.95–4357, 1996 WL 434484 (6th Cir. Aug.1, 1996) (concluding that
abstention was proper where Court of Common Pleas retained jurisdiction over
child custody case); Edwards v. Goldberg, No. 84–1728, 1985 WL 12793 (6th
Cir. Oct.7, 1985) (finding that principles of comity required the federal courts to
abstain from addressing issues relevant to an on-going child support dispute).
-3-
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?