DeRouseau v. Family Court

Background

Kyle G. DeRouseau, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Family Court, Westchester County; Judge Arlene (Gordon) Oliver; and attorneys Jasmine Hernandez, Eva Bunting Smith, and Arnold Szherzrniak. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. DeRouseau alleged that the Family Court ignored several contempt petitions, that unspecified perjury was ignored, and that problems involving the child’s mother, housing, and legal assistance caused his child to be removed from housing. He alleged that he remained deprived of parental rights and sought sole or full custody of the minor child, K.M.D.

The court had previously allowed DeRouseau to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. In reviewing a case filed under that status, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Representation of the Minor Child

The court dismissed K.M.D. as a plaintiff because DeRouseau did not show that he was a lawyer. A nonlawyer parent generally cannot represent a child in federal court without counsel. The court expressly dismissed any claims asserted on K.M.D.’s behalf without prejudice.

Claims Against the Family Court

The court held that the Family Court, as part of the New York State Unified Court System, is an arm of New York State. New York had not waived its protection from suit in federal court, and Congress had not removed that protection through Section 1983. The court therefore dismissed DeRouseau’s Section 1983 claims against the Family Court for lack of jurisdiction.

Claims Against Judge Oliver

The court applied judicial immunity, which generally protects judges from damages claims based on acts performed as part of their judicial responsibilities. DeRouseau’s claims arose from Judge Oliver’s decisions or failures to act while presiding over his Family Court proceedings. The court found that DeRouseau’s conclusory allegation that the judge acted outside her jurisdiction did not establish that she acted without jurisdiction. It therefore dismissed the Section 1983 claims against Judge Oliver under judicial immunity and, for purposes of the fee-waiver statute, as frivolous.

Claims Against the Appointed Attorneys

A Section 1983 claim requires facts showing that the defendant acted under color of state law, meaning through governmental authority or conduct fairly attributable to the government. The court held that attorneys generally are not state actors merely because they represent a party, including when they are appointed by a court. It also stated that attorneys representing children in Family Court must exercise independent professional judgment for their clients. Because the complaint did not show that Hernandez, Bunting Smith, or Szherzrniak were state actors, the court dismissed all claims against those defendants for failure to state a claim.

Section 1985 Claim

Section 1985 provides a cause of action for certain conspiracies to deprive people of equal legal protection or other legal rights. The court held that DeRouseau did not allege racial or other class-based discriminatory motive, facts showing a conspiracy, or specific acts supporting such a conspiracy. It dismissed the Section 1985 claim for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Custody Request and Amendment

The court explained that federal district courts generally do not decide child-custody disputes when state courts can decide them. It also held that federal district courts cannot function as appeals courts reviewing state-court judgments. The court stated that a challenge to Family Court decisions concerning custody or parental rights must be pursued through a direct appeal in the state-court system.

The court declined to give DeRouseau permission to amend. It found that the defects involving immune defendants and defendants who were not state actors could not be corrected through amendment.

Disposition

The court dismissed K.M.D. as a plaintiff without prejudice because DeRouseau could not represent the minor child without a lawyer. It dismissed the remainder of DeRouseau’s complaint under the federal statute governing fee-waived cases. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waived status for purposes of an appeal.