Volino v. Family Court Dutchess County

Background

Dominick Volino filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. He alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims for violations of federal rights by people acting for a state, and under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The defendants named in the complaint included the Dutchess County Family Court; Judges Jeffrey Martin, Damian Amodeo, and Joan Posner; and Marisa Vumbico, whom Volino identified as his ex-partner. Volino challenged state-court decisions involving custody, visitation, child support, restraining orders, alleged criminal proceedings, and mental-health evaluations. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including a ruling that the family-court orders were invalid nationwide, as well as money damages.

Section 1983 claims

The court dismissed the claims against Judges Martin, Amodeo, and Posner. It held that judges are absolutely immune from damages claims for acts performed as part of their judicial responsibilities. The court found that Volino alleged no facts showing that the judges acted outside their judicial responsibilities or jurisdiction. It dismissed these claims under judicial immunity and as frivolous. The court also explained that federal law generally limits injunctive relief against judicial officers unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims against the Dutchess County Family Court under the Eleventh Amendment, which generally protects states and state-created entities from suit in federal court. It treated the Family Court as part of New York’s statewide court system and therefore as an arm of the state. The court also described these claims as frivolous.

The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims against Vumbico for failure to state a claim. It explained that Section 1983 generally applies only to defendants acting under state authority. Because Volino did not allege that Vumbico worked for the government or that her actions could fairly be attributed to the state, the complaint did not state a Section 1983 claim against her.

Limits on federal review of the state-court matters

The court further held that the claims were barred by two doctrines even if Volino had named a proper defendant. First, under domestic-relations abstention, federal courts generally do not decide claims involving custody, visitation, support, divorce, or similar family-law matters when state courts can fully and fairly decide them. The court found that Volino was challenging state-court decisions about visitation, custody, and support, and had not alleged facts showing that the state proceedings denied him a full and fair determination.

Second, the court applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine prevents a federal district court from acting as an appeal court reviewing final state-court judgments. The court found that Volino lost in state court, attributed his injuries to the state-court judgments, asked the federal court to invalidate those judgments, and filed his federal action afterward. The court stated that this doctrine barred his challenges concerning divorce, custody, child support, and mental health.

ADA claims

The court dismissed Volino’s disability-discrimination claims under the ADA. Even assuming that he had a disability covered by the ADA during the state proceedings, the court found that he did not allege facts connecting the actions taken against him to discrimination because of his mental illness. Simply alleging a disability and harmful events was not enough to state a plausible ADA claim.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under the federal statute governing lawsuits filed without prepayment of fees. It denied Volino leave to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to mail Volino a copy of the order.