Thomas v. Martin-Gibbons

Background

The opinion addresses two related lawsuits arising from a long-running custody dispute over J.O. A New York Family Court awarded J.O.’s father, Dana J. Wilson-Haynes, permanent custody in December 2018 and approved his relocation to California. Shanequa Ortiz, J.O.’s mother, and J.O.’s maternal relatives sued defendants who included Wilson-Haynes, members of his family, attorneys and employees involved in the custody proceedings, Judge Robert Mulroy, New York State, New York City, and certain city agencies and employees.

The plaintiffs alleged constitutional and civil-rights violations, misconduct in the custody proceedings, harm connected to J.O.’s relocation and custody, and injuries Shanequa Ortiz allegedly suffered while detained at or transported to Rikers Island. They sought custody-related relief, damages, and other declaratory or injunctive relief. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. The court also dismissed claims against some defendants who had not filed motions, after concluding that the plaintiffs had sufficient opportunities to address those claims.

Claims Brought for J.O.

The court dismissed all claims brought on J.O.’s behalf without prejudice because J.O. is a minor and Shanequa Ortiz could not represent him without a lawyer. The claims could be brought again if J.O. were represented by counsel.

Requests for Custody and Injunctive Relief

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to reverse the Family Court’s custody and relocation order. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents federal district courts from functioning as appeals courts for state-court judgments, barred review of Ortiz’s challenge to the custody decision. The court also applied that doctrine to the maternal relatives’ challenges to Family Court decisions denying or dismissing their visitation requests.

The court separately held that the domestic-relations exception and related abstention doctrine prevented it from issuing an independent child-custody decree. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over federal-law custody claims because the custody issues could be fully determined in state court. It also declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims in the Thomas case after dismissing the federal claims.

Immunity and Federal Claims

The court dismissed damages claims against New York State and Judge Mulroy in his official capacity under sovereign immunity. It dismissed claims against Judge Mulroy in his individual capacity under absolute judicial immunity because the allegations concerned actions he took in his judicial role.

The Children’s Law Center and its employees received quasi-judicial immunity because the allegations arose from their court-appointed representation of J.O. during Family Court proceedings. The court also held that 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act did not provide private rights of action.

The plaintiffs’ main federal claims were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which permits claims for constitutional violations by state actors. The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against Wilson-Haynes, Carl J. Haynes, Vinola Wilson, and Patricia L. Martin-Gibbons because the complaints did not show that these private defendants acted under color of state law. Appearing in court and prevailing in a lawsuit did not, by itself, make them state actors.

The court dismissed claims against New York City Department of Health employees Ritter and Montgomery because the allegations that they refused to help Ortiz investigate a birth-certificate issue did not show a constitutional violation or explain how their conduct affected her ability to care for or be with J.O. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ other constitutional theories, including their First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Fourth, Eighth, and Eleventh Amendment claims, for the reasons described in the opinion.

Claims Against New York City

The court dismissed claims against the New York City Department of Health and Department of Correction because those departments were not separately suable entities. It dismissed Ortiz’s Fourth Amendment claim based on her strip search because the alleged search was constitutionally permissible under the circumstances described.

The court also held that Ortiz had not adequately alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement based on the bench that allegedly injured her leg, or excessive force based on tight handcuffing. In addition, she had not alleged a city policy or practice that caused either injury, as required for municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services. Her claim concerning verbal harassment during transportation was also dismissed because verbal harassment alone was not actionable under § 1983.

The court dismissed Ortiz’s claims against New York City concerning her detention at and transportation to Rikers Island without prejudice. It allowed her to file a second amended complaint limited to those claims by October 1, 2020.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

The court held that claim preclusion barred Ortiz’s defamation and fraud claims against Martin-Gibbons because Ortiz had previously brought essentially the same claims in New York Supreme Court and that court had dismissed them on the merits. Any other state-law claims Ortiz intended to assert were dismissed as conclusory.

The Thomas complaint, No. 19 Civ. 7695, was dismissed in its entirety. The Thomas plaintiffs’ state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice subject to refiling in state court, claims asserted on J.O.’s behalf were dismissed without prejudice to being brought by counsel, and all federal claims were dismissed with prejudice.

The Ortiz complaint, No. 19 Civ. 7887, was also dismissed in its entirety. Ortiz’s custody claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Her federal claims against all defendants other than New York City were dismissed with prejudice. Her federal claims against New York City concerning her detention at and transportation to Rikers Island were dismissed without prejudice, while all other claims against the City and all state-law claims were dismissed with prejudice. Judge Ramos concluded that all defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted in their entirety.