Roldan v. Family Court of the City of New York

Background

Brendalis Roldan, acting without a lawyer and proceeding without paying court fees, sued the Family Court of the City of New York, the Administration for Children’s Services, several identified individuals, and ten unnamed defendants. The opinion says that she apparently alleged retaliation under the False Claims Act, disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and violations of the First Amendment in connection with a custody case pending in Bronx County Family Court.

Roldan also filed a notice attempting to remove the custody case from Bronx County Family Court to the federal district court. She filed three emergency motions seeking a temporary restraining order, expedited consideration, and immediate injunctive relief. A temporary restraining order is a short-term court order intended to prevent alleged harm while a case proceeds.

Report and Recommendation and Objections

The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky, who recommended denying the motions for emergency relief and remanding the custody case to Bronx County Family Court. Roldan objected, alleging procedural violations, bias, use of the wrong legal standard, disregard of an appeal, and improper efforts to dismiss her case.

Because the objections were conclusory or repeated earlier arguments rather than identifying specific errors, Judge Rearden reviewed the recommendation for clear error. Under that standard, the recommendation could be rejected only if the court was firmly convinced that a mistake had been made.

Court’s Analysis

The court found no clear error in the magistrate judge’s analysis of the emergency motions. The recommendation applied the standard requiring Roldan to show likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the claims or serious questions warranting litigation combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships. The court agreed that Roldan had not shown a likelihood of success on her False Claims Act retaliation, Americans with Disabilities Act, or First Amendment claims, even assuming her well-pleaded factual allegations were true.

The court also rejected Roldan’s objections concerning removal. It agreed that removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) was improper because the custody case did not involve racial-discrimination claims or discrimination claims based on state law. It further agreed that removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 was improper because Roldan’s description did not show that the custody case was based on federal law or involved federal claims. The court did not find clear error in the recommendation’s treatment of diversity jurisdiction either.

The court clarified that the recommendation did not dismiss this federal action. Instead, it adopted the recommendation’s provisions, including leave to file an amended complaint. The court also rejected the contention that the magistrate judge had improperly exercised jurisdiction.

Disposition

Judge Rearden adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. The court denied the motions for a temporary restraining order identified as ECF Nos. 16, 17, and 18, and remanded the custody case to Bronx Family Court. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to terminate the three emergency motions and mail the order to Roldan and Bronx County Family Court.