CourtListener opinion 10318275

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
VANDYKE JOHNSON, 
 Plaintiff, 
 -against- 
 19-CV-8093 (CM) 
DIANA ALMA; CHILD PROTECTIVE 
SPECIALIST; DAVID A. HANSELL, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 
COMMISSIONER OF CHILDREN 
SERVICES; CITY OF NEW YORK, 
 Defendants. 
COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: 
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action, alleging that Defendants violated his 
constitutional rights. By order dated October 2, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to 
proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP). 
 STANDARD OF REVIEW 
The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or portion thereof, that is 
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary 
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see 
Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also 
dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 
12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to 
construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret 
them to raise the "strongest [claims] that they suggest," Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 
F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in 
original). 
 BACKGROUND 
Plaintiff Vandyke Johnson drafted this complaint using the general complaint form 
provided by this Court. After checking the box on the form to indicate that he invokes the Court's 
federal question jurisdiction, he lists the following (in the section in which he is asked to indicate 
which of his federal constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated): "Defendants 

violated the Plaintiff's 14th Amendment constitutional parental rights under the color of law; 
Plaintiff is alleging defamation against said Defendants; Plaintiff is alleging negligence against 
said Defendants." (Compl. at 2.)1 
Plaintiff alleges the following facts. On August 22, 2019, Plaintiff was arrested in New 
York, New York; he was charged with assault in the third degree and with endangering the 
welfare of a child. Plaintiff's stepdaughter, who is 14 years old, is the complainant in the 
criminal case. Plaintiff pleaded not guilty to the charges. Plaintiff's biological daughter, who is 
five years old, is not involved in the criminal case, but she is involved in the Family Court 
proceedings. Defendant Diana Alma was assigned to investigate the claims of abuse. Proceedings 
were held in Family Court on August 28, and 29, 2019, but Plaintiff was not present because he 

was not notified of the proceedings. A temporary restraining order was issued, preventing 
Plaintiff from contacting his wife and children. 
Plaintiff brings this action seeking a restraining order against Defendants, $1 million 
dollars in monetary damages for alleged constitutional violations, defamation, and negligence. 

1 Page numbers refer to those generated by the Court's electronic case filing system. 
 DISCUSSION 
A. Rule 5.2(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
The attachments to Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief, (ECF No. 4), list the full 
names of Plaintiff's daughter and stepdaughter, who are minors. Rule 5.2(a)(3) of the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure requires that any references to a minor in court submissions must be 
made by referring only to the minor's initials. 

Because of Plaintiff's failure to comply with this rule, the Clerk of Court has limited 
access to ECF No. 4 to a "party view only" basis. Any future submissions must comply with 
Rule 5.2(a)(3). 
B. Domestic Relations Exception 
This Court does not have jurisdiction to consider claims arising out of Plaintiff's family 
court proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that "the domestic relations of 
husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the 
United States." Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992) (quoting Ex parte Burrus, 
136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890)). Therefore, "‘divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees' remain 
outside federal jurisdictional bounds." Bukowski v. Spinner, No. 17-CV-0845 (JS) (ARL), 2017 

WL 1592578, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2017) (quoting Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 308 
(2006)). 
While this so-called domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction arose from the 
interpretation of the federal diversity statute, district courts "routinely apply the exception to 
cases brought under the federal courts' federal questions jurisdiction." Fernandez v. Turetsky, 
No. 12-CV-4092 (SLT), 2014 WL 5823116, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2014); see also 
Ankenbrandt, 504 U.S. at 705 (noting that it may be appropriate for Courts to abstain from 
exercising subject matter jurisdiction "in a case involving elements of the domestic relationship 
even when the parties do not seek divorce, alimony, or child custody"); Martinez v. Queens Cnty. 
Dist. Atty., 596 F. App'x 10, 12 (2d Cir. Jan. 7, 2015) (summary order) (noting that "subject 
matter jurisdiction may be lacking in actions directed at challenging the results of domestic 
relations proceedings"), cert. denied sub nom. Martinez v. Brown, 135 S. Ct. 1855 (2015); 

Mitchell-Angel v. Cronin, No. 95-7937, 1996 WL 107300, at *2 (2d Cir. Mar. 8, 1996) 
(unpublished table opinion) ("District courts in this Circuit have held that the exception includes 
civil rights actions directed at challenging the results of domestic relations proceedings." ); Am. 
Airlines, Inc. v. Block, 905 F.2d 12, 14 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam) ("A federal court presented 
with matrimonial issues or issues ‘on the verge' of being matrimonial in nature should abstain 
from exercising jurisdiction so long as there is no obstacle to their full and fair determination in 
state courts."); Sobel v. Prudenti, 25 F. Supp. 3d 340, 354-55 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ("Plaintiff asks 
the Court to ‘undo' the domestic relations orders issued by the state courts, . . . However, under 
the domestic relations exception, this Court cannot and will not provide the relief Plaintiff 
seeks."). And "[w]hile the domestic relation exception itself is narrow, it applies generally to 

issues relating to the custody of minors." Mitchell-Angel, No. 95-7937, at *2 (internal citations 
omitted) (citing Williams v. Lambert, 46 F.3d 1275, 1283 (2d Cir. 1995), and Hernstadt v. 
Hernstadt, 373 F.2d 316, 327 (2d Cir. 1967)). 
The gravamen of the complaint concerns Plaintiff's ongoing family court proceedings, 
which relate directly to the welfare of his minor stepdaughter and daughter. Therefore, the 
domestic relations exception applies,2 and the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to consider 

2 To the extent that Plaintiff challenges any final determinations of the family court, his 
claims are likely barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, even if the domestic relations 
exception does not apply in this case. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies where the federal-
court plaintiff: (1) lost in state court, (2) complains of injuries caused by the state-court 
judgment, (3) invites the district court to review and reject the state-court judgment, and 
those claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 
(1999) ("[S]ubject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own 
initiative. . . ."). 
C. Pending State-Court Proceedings 
To the extent that Plaintiff, in seeking injunctive relief, asks this Court to intervene in his 

pending state-court proceedings, the Court must dismiss those claims. In Younger v. Harris, 401 
U.S. 37 (1971), the United States Supreme Court held that a federal court may not enjoin a 
pending state-court criminal proceeding in the absence of special circumstances suggesting bad 
faith, harassment, or irreparable injury that is both serious and immediate. See Heicklen v. 
Morgenthau, 378 F. App' x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 573-
74 (1973)). This doctrine has been extended to civil actions. See Kaufman v. Kaye, 466 F.3d 83, 
86 (2d Cir. 2006); Diamond "D" Const. Corp. v. McGowan, 282 F.3d 191, 198 (2d Cir. 2002) 
("Younger generally requires federal courts to abstain from taking jurisdiction over federal 
constitutional claims that involve or call into question ongoing state proceedings." ). 
Younger abstention seeks to avoid federal court interference with ongoing state criminal 

prosecutions, state-initiated civil enforcement proceedings, and state civil proceedings that 
involve the ability of state courts to perform their judicial functions. Jones v. Cnty. of 
Westchester, 678 F. App'x 48, 49-50 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order). Thus, abstention is 
appropriate in only three categories of state court proceedings: (1) state criminal prosecutions; 
(2) civil enforcement proceedings that are "akin to criminal prosecutions"; and (3) civil 

(4) commenced the district court proceedings after the state-court judgment was rendered. 
Vossbrinck v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., 773 F.3d 423, 426 (2d Cir. 2014). The doctrine 
applies here to the extent that Plaintiff lost custody of his minor child in state court, complains of 
that loss here, and seeks this Court's review of that decision. 
proceedings "that implicate a State's interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts." 
Sprint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584, 588 (2013). 
In Sprint, the Supreme Court opined that family court abuse and neglect proceedings are 
barred by the Younger abstention because they are a type of state-initiated civil enforcement 

proceedings that are "akin to [] criminal prosecution." See Sprint, 134 S. Ct. at 592 (citing Moore 
v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 419-420 (1979)); see also Davis v. Baldwin, 594 F. App'x 49, 51 (2d Cir. 
2015) (summary order) (noting that the Supreme Court placed "a state-initiated proceeding to 
gain custody allegedly abused by their parents" in the second Sprint category). 
The family court proceedings, as determined by the attachments to Plaintiff's request for 
injunctive relief, – a state-initiated investigation of abuse or neglect allegations, followed by the 
issuance of a temporary order of protection preventing Plaintiff from contacting his wife and 
children – are state court proceedings as categorized in Sprint. Plaintiff has alleged no facts 
showing bad faith, harassment, or irreparable injury with respect to the pending state-court 
proceedings. Therefore, the Court will not intervene in those proceedings and dismisses, under 

Younger, any claims for injunctive relief that are not already barred by the domestic relations 
exception to federal jurisdiction. 
D. Municipal Liability 
Plaintiff names the City of New York as a Defendant, but he does not identify a policy or 
custom that led to any violation of his constitutional rights. When a plaintiff sues a municipality 
under § 1983, it is not enough for the plaintiff to allege that one of the municipality's employees 
or agents engaged in some wrongdoing. The plaintiff must show that the municipality itself 
caused the violation of the plaintiff's rights. See Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1359 
(2011) ("A municipality or other local government may be liable under this section [1983] if the 
governmental body itself ‘subjects' a person to a deprivation of rights or ‘causes' a person ‘to be 
subjected' to such deprivation.") (quoting Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 
436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978)); Cash v. Cnty. of Erie, 654 F.3d 324, 333 (2d Cir. 2011). In other 
words, to state a § 1983 claim against a municipality, the plaintiff must allege facts showing 
(1) the existence of a municipal policy, custom, or practice, and (2) that the policy, custom, or 

practice caused the violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights. See Jones v. Town of East 
Haven, 691 F.3d 72, 80 (2d Cir. 2012); Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 
397, 403 (1997) (internal citations omitted). 
Because Plaintiff's complaint does not contain facts supporting a municipal liability 
claim, his claim against the City of New York must be dismissed. 
E. State-Law Claims 
Plaintiff asserts defamation and negligence claims against Defendants. But defamation 
and negligence are state, not federal, claims, and federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. 
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a federal district court is authorized to decline to exercise 
supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims once it has dismissed all of the federal claims 
over which it had original jurisdiction. See, e.g., Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 

350 n.7 (1988) ("Generally, "when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its 
early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of 
jurisdiction."). 
Because Plaintiff's federal claims have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise 
supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law defamation and negligence claims that Plaintiff 
seeks to raise in his complaint. See Martinez v. Simonetti, 202 F.3d 625, 636 (2d Cir. 2000) 
(directing dismissal of supplemental state-law claims where no federal claims remained). 
F. Request for Injunctive Relief 
Plaintiff filed a request for a temporary restraining order. To obtain such relief, Plaintiff 
must show: (1) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm and (2) either (a) a likelihood of 
success on the merits of his case or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make 
them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in his favor. See 

UBS Fin. Servs., Inc. v. W.V. Univ. Hosps., Inc., 660 F. 3d 643, 648 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation and 
internal quotation marks omitted); Wright v. Giuliani, 230 F.3d 543, 547 (2000). Preliminary 
injunctive relief "is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless 
the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. 
of N.Y., Inc., 409 F.3d 506, 510 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 
As set forth above, Plaintiff's claims regarding the pending family court proceedings are 
barred by the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction and the Younger abstention 
doctrine. The Court finds therefore that Plaintiff has failed to show (1) a likelihood of success on 
the merits, or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for 
litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in his favor. Accordingly, Plaintiff's 

request for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 4) is denied. 
District courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to 
cure its defects but leave to amend is not required where it would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 
657 F.3d 116, 123–24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). 
Because the defects in Plaintiff's complaint cannot be cured with an amendment, the Court 
declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. 
 CONCLUSION 
The Clerk of Court is directed to assign this matter to my docket and note service on the 
docket. Plaintiff has consented to electronic service. 
 Plaintiff's complaint, filed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is dismissed as barred by 
the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction and the Younger abstention doctrine. 
 Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief (ECF No. 4) is denied. 
 The Clerk of Court is directed to docket this as a "written opinion" within the meaning of 
Section 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002. 
 The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would 
not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf 
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates 
good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). 
SO ORDERED. 
Dated: October 15, 2019 , 
 New York, New York huh. Wyk 
 Chief United States District Judge