Saloom v. Texas Department of Family and Child Protective Services et al
Filing
65
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt) Parties notified.(chorace)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JONI FAITH SALOOM,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13-cv-01002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.
INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court are the following motions: the defendants’, Texas Department
of Family and Protective Services (“TDFPS”) and the 310th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas (the “Harris County 310th JDC”), motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s original
complaint (Dkt. No. 6); the defendant’s, the 300th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County,
Texas (the “Brazoria County 300th JDC”), motion to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 22 & 26); the
defendant’s, City of Pearland, incorrectly named as the City of Pearland Police Department,
motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 28); the defendants’, the Harris County Sheriff’s Office, the Harris
County District Attorney’s Office, the Harris County Commissioner’s Court County Judge, Ed
Emmett (“Judge Ed Emmett”) and The Children’s Assessment Center of Harris County, motion
to dismiss (Dkt No. 32); the defendants’, the TDFPS, John J. Specia, Jr., Cheryl Lynn Haverick,
Lesly Damian-Murray, and Karen Coblentz (collectively, the “TDFPS employees”), motion to
dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. No. 40), including responses thereto (Dkt. No.
58); the defendant’s, Harris County Sheriff’s Department Sergeant William Lilly (“Sergeant
Lilly”), motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 47), including responses thereto (Dkt. Nos. 49 & 58); the
1 / 13
defendant’s, Pearland Police Department Officer Paul Elton (“Officer Elton”), motion to dismiss
(Dkt. No. 48), including responses thereto (Dkt. No. 58); the defendants’, TDFPS and the
TDFPS employees, motion to strike the plaintiff’s response (Dkt. No. 50) and related motion for
joinder (Dkt. No. 52); the plaintiff’s, Joni Faith Saloom (the “plaintiff”), motion to strike and
preclude evidence (Dkt. No. 58), including responses thereto (Dkt. No. 61); and the plaintiff’s,
unopposed motion to dismiss previously named defendants (Dkt. No. 59). After having carefully
considered the numerous motions, the pleadings on file and the applicable law, the Court
determines that the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the Harris County 310th JDC, the Brazoria
County 300th JDC, the Harris County DA’s Office, the Harris County Children’s Assessment
Center, the Harris County Sheriff’s Department, Judge Ed Emmett and Ms. Donna Everson is
GRANTED (See Dkt. No. 59); likewise, these defendants’ respective motions are DENIED as
moot. Additionally, the defendants’, the TDFPS and TDFPS employees, Sergeant Lilly and
Officer Elton, motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction are GRANTED; these
defendants’ motions to dismiss on alternative grounds are hereby DENIED as moot.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff, a Brazoria County resident, initiated the instant action
against the TDFPS, the Pearland Police Department, the Harris County Sheriff’s Department, the
Harris County 310th JDC, the Brazoria County 300th JDC, the Harris County DA’s Office,
Judge Ed Emmett, the Harris County Children’s Assessment Center and Ms. Donna Everson
Everson, a court-appointed guardian and attorney ad litem (collectively referred to as “the
defendants”). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants conspired to fabricate false allegations
against her in order to cause her custodial rights over her minor son, J.J.W., to be terminated,
2 / 13
thereby resulting in multiple violations of her civil rights. Specifically, she makes the following
allegations against the defendants in her Original Complaint:
On the evening of May 08, 2013, my only child, son, then aged five years old, J.
J.W., was unlawfully and absent due process or protection of the laws seized from
my physical custody and primary conservatorship as I then knew it to be by Court
Order (See Suit Affecting Parent Child Relationship, 310th Judicial District
Court, Harris County, TX Nov. 2007 and Final Order for Child Support in Harris
County, TX Dec. 2012) absent exigent circumstance or threat of harm (either
emotional or physical if child remained in my home) at the Pearland CPS Office
located at 9407 Broadway, Pearland, TX 77584 in a conspiracy against rights with
collusion and malicious and knowing intent to prosecute by Petitioner and
vexatious litigant, child’s father, Mr. Matthew James Worrell and paid agents,
Ms. Cheryl Lynn Harvick, CPS supervisor, Brazoria County, TX, Officer Paul
Elton, Badge # 106, Pearland Police Department, and Sergeant William Lilly,
Harris County Sheriff's Office of Crimes Against Children Unit. On such date
Sergeant Lilly also threatened me with a false felony conviction and failed to
investigate allegations of a sexual nature made by my son with regard to an
alleged “visitor” during his last (court-ordered) visitation at his father, Petitioner
Matthew James Worrell’s home. On such evening I was lured to the Pearland
CPS office under the misguided assumption, planted by Ms. Harvick and Sgt.
Lilly, that sexual misconduct had indeed taken place and that they needed my help
to make an arrest. I showed up on-time to the appointment I called and made in
response to Ms. Harvick’s phone call on the evening of Monday, May 07, 2013,
incidentally, after returning home from pre-registering my son for kindergarten
the following semester, a day that has sadly come and gone in my absence. At
such time, Ms. Harvick removed my son, J.J.W., from the room, angrily told me I
would never see my son again because I would never call the Office of Consumer
Affairs about one of her employees (referring to Brazoria County caseworker, Ms.
Lesley Damian-Murray), again. Officer Elton (surrounded by three other large
Pearland police officers and detectives), Badge # 105, angrily threw my valid TX
driver’s license at me and menacingly warned that I would never go “talking
smack” about him at his precinct again (referring to the substation at 2555 Cullen
Parkway, Pearland, TX 77581). Throughout the past ten plus months, I have been
subjected to complete alienation and sequestration (all contact cut-off) from my
only child, J. J.W.
(Pl.’s Compl., at 2 – 3; Dkt. No. 1).
She further contends that the defendants deprived her and her son of numerous
guaranteed Constitutional rights, including “those in the Bill of Rights to the United States
Constitution, to include the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Seventh
3 / 13
Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and possibly First and Second Amendments.” (Dkt. No. 1
at p. 3). As a consequence, she seeks legal custody and/or conservatorship of her minor son,
various parental rights, a permanent injunction limiting her son’s biological father’s rights, an
unspecified amount of monetary damages and criminal “prosecution of any and all
judicial/government workers and/or state actors or individuals to the fullest extent of the law.”
(Id. at p. 5).
Subsequent to the plaintiff’s Complaint, several of the defendants moved for dismissal of
the plaintiff’s suit on various grounds, including a lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, the Younger Abstention Doctrine and/or the domestic relations
exception to federal jurisdiction, sovereign and qualified immunity and failure to state a claim
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On July 1, 2013, in an apparent attempt to rectify the pleading
deficiencies asserted by the defendants in their motions to dismiss, the plaintiff filed an eightythree page First Amended Complaint abandoning her claims against all of the original defendants
except the TDFPS and the Pearland Police Department, yet adding several others, including the
TDFPS Commissioner, John J. Specia, Jr., TDFPS employees, Cheryl Lynn Haverick, Lesly
Damian-Murray, and Karen Coblentz, Pearland Police Department Officer Paul Elton, Harris
County Sheriff’s Department Sergeant William Lilly and the City of Pearland (the “defendants”).
In her Amended Complaint, she asserts, inter alia, the following allegations:
DUE PROCESS CLAIMS
Defendants (jointly and severally), who acted in both official and individual
capacity clearly acted in conspiracy/collusion against Plaintiff and Child’s
rights as explained herein with Child’s father, Mr. Matthew James Worrell,
a/k/a. “Matt Worrell” (and his family), caused Plaintiff, Joni Faith Saloom and
Child, J.J.W. of the genealogy Saloom, to be subjected to wrongful and
unlawful (illegal) search and seizure at the same location and date without
probable cause, reliability, and without due process of law (as demonstrative
evidence, record, testimony, and circumstantial evidence will prove way
4 / 13
beyond a preponderance of evidence, the standard burden of proof in this
meritorious civil rights action at law.
...
PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS
Defendants, who acted in their (respective) official and/or individual capacity
under the color of law, jointly and/or severally, submitted material implicit and
explicit false and fraudulent (sworn) hearsay testimony--both direct (oral) and
indirect (affidavit), to two different courts at law against Plaintiff to
maliciously and knowingly cause Plaintiff to suffer the loss of Plaintiff’s Child
with reckless indifference to the concurrent and foreseeable consequences of
Child losing his mother, the only consistent parent in his life who did raise
Child through the critical age of five and one-half years old.
...
(Pl’s First Amend. Compl. at 6, 60; Dkt. No. 38) (emphasis in original). She appears to
allege constitutional violations against the defendants pursuant to 42 U.S. C. §§ 1983 and
1985 and pursuant to the “First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights”. She also appears to allege claims for fraud,
slander, libel and conspiracy against the defendants. (See Dkt. No. 38). While she no
longer appears to seek injunctive relief from this Court, she, nevertheless, seeks an
unspecified amount of damages which she estimates to be “significantly higher than
$500,000 U.S.D. for [her] and [her] Child each.” (Dkt. No. 38-2 at 81). All of the
defendants, added by way of her First Amended Complaint, have moved for dismissal of
her lawsuit on the same grounds set forth above by the original defendants.
III.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A. Standard Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)
Rule 12(b)(1) permits the dismissal of an action for the lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). “If [a federal] court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, [it] must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Berkshire Fashions,
5 / 13
Inc. v. M.V. Hakusan II, 954 F.2d 874, 880 n.3 (3rd Cir. 1992) (citing Rubin v. Buckman, 727
F.2d 71, 72 (3d Cir. 1984)) (reasoning that “[t]he distinction between a Rule 12(h)(3) motion and
a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is simply that the former may be asserted at any time and need not be
responsive to any pleading of the other party.”) Since federal courts are considered courts of
limited jurisdiction, absent jurisdiction conferred by statute, they lack the power to adjudicate
claims. See, e.g., Stockman v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing
Veldhoen v. United States Coast Guard, 35 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1994). Therefore, the party
seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court carries “the burden of proving subject matter
jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Vantage Trailers, Inc. v. Beall Corp., 567 F.3d
745, 748 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing New Orleans & Gulf Coast Ry. Co. v. Barrois, 533 F.3d 321, 327
(5th Cir. 2008); see also Stockman, 138 F.3d at 151.
When evaluating jurisdiction, “a [federal] court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy
itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case.” MDPhysicians & Assoc., Inc. v. State Bd.
of Ins., 957 F.2d 178, 181 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (5th
Cir. 1981)); see also Vantage Trailers, 567 F.3d at 748 (reasoning that “[i]n evaluating
jurisdiction, the district court must resolve disputed facts without giving a presumption of
truthfulness to the plaintiff’s allegations.”) In making its ruling, the court may rely on any of the
following:
“(1) the complaint alone, (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts
evidenced in the record, or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s
resolution of disputed facts.” MDPhysicians, 957 F.2d at 181 n.2 (citing Williamson, 645 F.2d at
413).
6 / 13
B.
Standard Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes a defendant to move to dismiss for
“failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Under the
demanding strictures of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “[t]he plaintiff's complaint is to be construed in
a light most favorable to the plaintiff, and the allegations contained therein are to be taken as
true.” Oppenheimer v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 94 F.3d 189, 194 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Mitchell v.
McBryde, 944 F.2d 229, 230 (5th Cir. 1991)). Dismissal is appropriate only if, the “[f]actual
allegations [are not] enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the
assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965, 167 L. Ed.2d 929 (2007).
Moreover, in light of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), “[s]pecific facts are not necessary;
the [factual allegations] need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167
L. Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1964).
Even so, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires
more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1964 - 65 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478
U.S. 265, 286, 106 S. Ct. 2932, 92 L. Ed.2d 209 (1986)).
More recently, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court expounded upon the Twombly
standard, reasoning that “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550
U.S. at 570, 127 S. Ct. at 1974). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
7 / 13
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at
556, 127 S. Ct. at 1955). “But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more
than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not ‘show [n]’-‘that
the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S. Ct. at 1950 (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a)(2)). Nevertheless, when considering a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court’s task is
limited to deciding whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence in support of his or her
claims, not whether the plaintiff will eventually prevail. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563, 127 S. Ct. at
1969 n.8 (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 40 L. Ed.2d 90 (1974));
see also Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1999).
IV.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
A. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
All defendants contend that the plaintiff’s lawsuit is jurisdictionally barred by the
Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, and, consequently, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
the plaintiff’s action. Since the Rooker–Feldman doctrine touches upon this Court’s very ability
to adjudicate the instant dispute, the Court considers it first. See Weaver v. Tex. Capital Bank,
N.A., 660 F.3d 900, 904 (5th Cir. 2011).
Pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, “federal district courts lack jurisdiction to
entertain collateral attacks on state court judgments.” Weaver v. Tex. Capital Bank N.A., 660
F.3d 900, 904 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Liedtke v. State Bar of Tex., 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.
1994)). “If the district court is confronted with issues that are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with a
state judgment, the court is ‘in essence being called upon to review the state court decision,’ and
the originality of the district court’s jurisdiction precludes such a review.” United States v.
8 / 13
Shepard, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482. 103 S .Ct. 1303 (1983)). Stated another way, “Rooker-Feldman
prevents state-court litigants ‘from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the
state judgment in a United States district court, based on the losing party’s claim that the state
judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights.’ ” Hall v. Dixon, No. H-09-2611, 2010 WL
3909515, at *37 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2010) (quoting Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005 06, 114 S. Ct. 2647, 129 L. Ed.2d 775 (1994)). Further, the Fifth Circuit has long recognized
that “[t]he casting of a complaint in the form of a civil rights action cannot circumvent this rule,
as absent a specific delegation ‘federal district courts, as courts of original jurisdiction, lack
appellate jurisdiction to review, modify, or nullify final orders of state courts.” Liedtke v. State
Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994) (citations and internal alterations omitted); see
also Hale v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688, 691 (5th Cir. 1986).
In the case sub judice, the defendants argue that the plaintiff’s case falls squarely within
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and thus, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over it. They
contend that the plaintiff has filed this lawsuit as a collateral attack on a state court judgment. In
support of their position, the defendants point out that the plaintiff’s Original Complaint sought
“[t]he immediate return of [her] child . . . to her physical and legal custody/conservatorship with
all her parental rights including sole managing, or, alternatively, primary managing
conservatorship reinstated” and other demands regarding visitation rights, child support and
other family law issues—a clear attack on the 310th Judicial District Court’s custody order.
(Dkt. No. 1 at 4 -5). They also contend that the very essence of the plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint, although now cast under the guise of a civil rights action, is to remedy the harm
allegedly imposed on her from the state court’s custody order and essentially overturn the state
9 / 13
court’s decision—yet another attack on the 310th Judicial District Court’s custody order. They
further argue that the plaintiff’s own admissions contained within her First Amended Complaint
coupled with the exhibits attached thereto indicate that the legal and factual contentions at the
heart of the plaintiff’s lawsuit are “inextricably intertwined” with the 310th Judicial District
Court’s custody order issued in the prior state-court proceedings.
Finally, the defendants
maintain that a finding in the plaintiff’s favor would require this Court to “‘reverse or modify a
state court judgment’ because it would compensate a party to the state court case by awarding
damages against the other parties to the state case for losses inflicted by the state court’s order by
second-guessing the fact-finder’s weighing of the evidence.” (See Dkt. No. 48, ¶ 13 at 8.)
Because, here, it appears that the plaintiff seeks redress from a final, unfavorable state
court judgment that allegedly has caused injury to her, the Court determines that it lacks
jurisdiction to entertain her claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
A review of the
plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, though not a model of clarity, insinuates that the plaintiff’s
action, when dismantled to its core, is an attempt to collaterally attack the propriety of the state
court’s decision in her child custody dispute. In essence, the plaintiff is seeking a reversal of the
Order, dated March 19, 2013, entered by the Harris County 310th Judicial District Court, under
the guise of a civil rights action in federal district court. Despite her arguments to the contrary,
her civil rights action is an attempt to bypass the Rooker–Feldman doctrine. Further her alleged
federal constitutional violations are “inextricably intertwined” with the judgment issued by the
Harris County 310th Judicial District Court, and therefore, her recourse is by appeal through the
state court system. See Liedtke, 18 F.3d at 318; Reedv. Terrell, 759 F.2d 472, 473–74 (5th Cir.
1985). “Judicial errors committed in state courts are for correction in the state court systems . . .
10 / 13
.” Hale, 786 F.2d at 691. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s lawsuit must be DISMISSED because this
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over it.
B.
The Younger Abstention Doctrine
In the alternative, to the extent that any custody issues remain pending in the state court,
the defendants contend that the plaintiff’s lawsuit is barred by the abstention doctrine of Younger
v. Harris, 401 U.S. 31 (1971) (holding that a federal court must abstain from enjoining a state
criminal proceeding).
Under the rule specified by the Supreme Court in Younger and its
progeny, federal district courts are instructed to refrain from entertaining demands for injunctive
or declaratory relief premised upon constitutional challenges to state criminal and/or civil
proceedings which are imminent at the time the federal suit is initiated. Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37 (1971) (injunctive relief); Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S. Ct. 764, 27 L. Ed.2d
688 (1971) (declaratory relief); Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457
U.S. 423, 432, 102 S. Ct. 2515, 73 L. Ed.2d 116 (1982) (extending the abstention doctrine to
cases seeking an injunction of state civil proceedings). The Fifth Circuit has determined that
Younger and Middlesex compel a federal district court to abstain under the following
circumstances:
(1) the dispute “involve[s] an ‘ongoing state judicial proceeding’”; (2) an
important state interest in the subject of the proceeding is involved; and (3) the state proceedings
afford an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges. Wightman v. Tex. Supreme
Court, 84 F.3d 188, 189 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Middlesex Cnty., 457 U.S. at 432)).
The defendants insist that if the state court custody dispute previously discussed remains
ongoing and the state court’s rulings are not final, thus satisfying the first prong under
Wightman, the Younger abstention doctrine is applicable to this case and requires this Court to
abstain from entertaining the plaintiff’s suit. They argue that the second prong under Wightman
11 / 13
is also satisfied because this lawsuit involves family and child custody issues—both of which are
important state interests. See Moore v. Simms, 442 U.S. 415, 434, 99 S. Ct. 2371, 60 L. Ed.2d
994 (1979) (“Family relations are a traditional area of state concern.”); see also Shipula v. Tex.
Dep’t. of Family Protective Servs., No. H-10-3688, 2011 WL 1882512, *9 (S.D. Tex. May 17,
2011) (citing Crouch v. Crouch, 566 F.2d 486, 487 (5th Cir. 1978); Jagiella v. Jagiella, 647 F.2d
561, 564 (5th Cir. 1981) (“[A]pplication of the Younger Abstention Doctrine to domestic
relations cases is obvious and proper.”)).
Finally, the defendants contend that the third
Wightman prong is satisfied in this lawsuit because based on the plaintiff’s own admissions on
file in this case, she has been afforded ample opportunity to litigate the issues presented in this
case in the Texas state forum, as many of the very issues raised in this case were argued by her in
the state-court proceedings. (See Dkt. Nos. 38-4, 38-5, 38-6, 38-7). Moreover, the defendants
maintain that “Texas law is apparently as accommodating as the federal forum . . . . [A]bstention
is appropriate unless state law clearly bars the interposition of the constitutional claims.” Moore,
442 U.S. at 425 – 26. Since Texas state law provides a sufficient avenue for the plaintiff to
present her alleged constitutional violations, this Court would be compelled by Younger, to the
extent that any custody issues remain pending in the state court, to abstain from hearing the
plaintiff’s suit.
V.
CONCLUSION
When construing the plaintiff’s allegations liberally, given her pro se status, the Court
finds that her lawsuit, though filed under the guise of a civil rights action, is a collateral attack on
a state court judgment and the constitutional issues asserted are “inextricably intertwined” with
issues regarding the state-court judgment’s validity.
Therefore, the Court finds that the
plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Rooker–Feldman doctrine and it is without subject-matter
12 / 13
jurisdiction to hear them. In the event that the state-court’s order relative to the plaintiff’s
custody dispute is not final, and is part of ongoing proceedings--no indication of which has been
made apparent in this case, the Court finds the Younger Abstention Doctrine applicable to
preclude the plaintiff’s claims.
Furthermore, because the central issue in the plaintiff’s lawsuit involves a domestic
relations dispute over the custody of a minor child or is so entangled in the plaintiff’s domestic
relations controversy as to be within the bounds of the domestic relations exception to federal
jurisdiction, this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiff’s domestic relations
controversy. See Daniels v. Stovall, 660 F. Supp. 301, 304 - 05 (S.D. Tex. 1987) (citing Goins v.
Goins, 777 F.2d 1059, 1063 (5th Cir. 1983) (“the [p]laintiff’s claims against certain [d]efendants
are so enmeshed in her domestic relations controversy, which is properly within the province of
the state court, that the exercise of the federal district court’s jurisdiction would be improper.”)).
In any event, the plaintiff has chosen the wrong forum within which to seek legal redress.
Accordingly, because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over her lawsuit, the
defendants’ motions to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction are GRANTED. Because this Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction is fatal to
the plaintiff’s lawsuit, the Court need not consider the defendant’s other grounds for dismissal.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that this case be, and is hereby, DISMISSED for the reasons
stated.
SIGNED on this 30th day of September, 2013.
___________________________________
Kenneth M. Hoyt
United States District Judge
13 / 13
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?