Levitin v. Rabbi Chaim Leibish Rottenberg
Joshua Levitin v. Rabbi Chaim Leibish Rottenberg, Beryl Friedman, Suri Friedman, Hon. Rachel Tanguay, Hon. David M. Ascher, Anna Kosovych, and John Does 1-10
- Nelson Roman
- 7:25-cv-08524
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Levitin v. Rottenberg, Judge Roman denied without prejudice Levitin’s temporary restraining-order request because federal jurisdiction was barred.
Pro se plaintiff Joshua Levitin, whose request sought to change enforcement of the Rockland County Family Court’s Temporary Orders of Protection and restore a prior custody arrangement. The federal court did not issue the requested order.
What happened
In Joshua Levitin v. Rabbi Chaim Leibish Rottenberg, Beryl Friedman, Suri Friedman, Hon. Rachel Tanguay, Hon. David M. Ascher, Anna Kosovych, and John Does 1-10, pro se plaintiff Joshua Levitin asked the federal court to stop enforcement of temporary protection orders issued by Rockland County Family Court and restore his custody of his minor children. He alleged that the state court’s custody proceedings violated his constitutional rights.
The court said it lacked authority to review or overturn the state-court orders under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine. Levitin’s requested relief would have required the federal court to declare the Family Court orders invalid and reinstate an earlier custody arrangement.
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied Levitin’s temporary restraining-order application without prejudice to renewal if Levitin can show that the Rooker–Feldman doctrine does not apply. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the motion and mail Levitin a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Levitin v. Rabbi Chaim Leibish Rottenberg · No. 7:25-cv-08524
- Nelson Roman
- Nov. 13, 2025
Background
Pro se plaintiff Joshua Levitin brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against private individuals and state officials. He alleged that the defendants conspired to deprive him of constitutional rights by manipulating state-court custody proceedings.
Levitin applied for a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. He asked the federal court to stop enforcement of Temporary Orders of Protection issued by Rockland County Family Court and to restore his custody of his minor children under an earlier order. He argued that the Family Court had lost jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and that continued enforcement of the protection orders was causing irreparable harm to his children. The New York State Attorney General opposed the application, and Levitin filed a reply.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, which generally prevents federal district courts from reviewing or overturning state-court judgments when the plaintiff complains of an injury caused by those judgments and asks the federal court to reject them. The doctrine can apply even when the challenge is presented as a constitutional claim.
The court determined that Levitin’s requested relief would require it to invalidate the Family Court’s orders and reinstate a prior custody arrangement. The injury he identified—continued enforcement of Temporary Orders of Protection limiting his parental access—flowed directly from those state-court orders. The court therefore concluded that granting the requested temporary restraining order would effectively constitute appellate review of the state proceedings.
Disposition
Judge Nelson S. Roman held that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to issue the requested injunction under Rooker–Feldman. The court DENIED Levitin’s application for a Temporary Restraining Order without prejudice to renewal upon a showing that Rooker–Feldman does not apply. The court did not decide whether Levitin’s underlying civil-rights allegations were legally valid. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 5, mail Levitin a copy of the Opinion and Order, and record service on the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.