Burke v. Reid-Cherry

Background

Ketanya R. Burke brought a pro se action under Section 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, against Judge Elenor Reid and the City of New York. The complaint identifies the judge as “Elenor Reid-Cherry,” but the opinion states that her correct name is Elenor C. Reid. Burke alleged that her constitutional rights were violated during child-custody proceedings in Family Court. She sought declaratory and injunctive relief—court orders stating her rights and preventing the alleged violations.

The opinion states that Judge Reid was no longer a Bronx Family Court judge when she was served and that the underlying state proceeding had been assigned to a new judge and remained ongoing.

Procedural History and Standard of Review

The defendants filed motions to dismiss. The district court referred those motions to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein, who issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motions be granted. The Report and Recommendation notified the parties that they had fourteen days to object and that failing to object would prevent appellate review. No party filed objections.

Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a full fresh review. The court nevertheless examined the recommendation and accepted its reasoning.

Court’s Analysis

Judge Gorenstein concluded that the Younger abstention doctrine required the federal court to refrain from exercising jurisdiction over the action. That doctrine generally limits federal-court intervention in certain ongoing state proceedings. The district court agreed that the declaratory and injunctive relief Burke sought would require federal interference with her ongoing state child-custody proceeding.

The court relied on three circumstances: the state custody proceeding was ongoing; the proceeding implicated important state interests; and courts in the circuit had repeatedly held that New York state courts provide an adequate opportunity to seek judicial review of constitutional claims. The court therefore agreed that abstention required dismissal of Burke’s claims.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. It directed the clerk to terminate the motions and close the case, and to mail a copy of the order to Burke. The opinion does not state that the motions or the case were dismissed with or without prejudice.