Robinson v. New York State Office of Children and Family Services

Background

Valdissa Robinson filed the action invoking federal-question jurisdiction and proceeded without a lawyer. She sought to have Administrative Law Judge Glen E. Harris removed from presiding over an upcoming maltreatment hearing before the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS). Robinson alleged that more than 20 hearings involved invalid or improper actions, that a judge she had asked to be removed continued to be assigned to her case, and that Harris made unspecified derogatory statements.

Robinson named OCFS, Harris, and Leslie Leitner as defendants. Although Robinson listed her minor child as an additional plaintiff, only Robinson signed the complaint. The complaint did not describe any conduct by Leitner or the Administration for Children’s Services. Robinson attached a notice stating that the maltreatment hearing concerned her eligibility for childcare-related employment and that, after an appeal in a Family Court matter was decided, the hearing was scheduled for June 5, 2023.

Claims involving Robinson’s minor child

The court held that a parent who is not admitted to practice law ordinarily cannot represent a minor child in federal court. Because only Robinson signed the complaint and she could not proceed without a lawyer on the child’s behalf, the court dismissed without prejudice any claims Robinson was asserting for her minor child.

Claims against OCFS

The court treated Robinson’s allegations against OCFS as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that allows suits over certain constitutional violations by government actors. OCFS is an agency of the State of New York. The court ruled that the Eleventh Amendment generally protects states and their agencies from suits in federal court, and that New York had not waived this protection for these claims. The court also stated that Congress had not removed that protection when it enacted § 1983. It therefore dismissed Robinson’s § 1983 claims against OCFS based on Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Claims against Administrative Law Judge Harris

The court explained that judges generally have absolute immunity from claims seeking damages for actions taken as part of their judicial responsibilities. That protection also applies to administrative law judges performing functions closely associated with the judicial process. The court noted that Robinson had not expressly requested damages, but stated that Harris would have judicial immunity from a damages claim based on his adjudicative actions.

The court understood the complaint as possibly seeking a declaration that Harris improperly refused to step aside or an order preventing him from refusing to step aside in the future. Under § 1983, an order requiring or prohibiting action by a judicial officer generally is unavailable unless a declaratory judgment was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. The court found that Robinson alleged neither circumstance. It also held that Robinson lacked standing—a sufficient personal and likely future injury—for prospective relief because her allegations did not establish a likelihood that she would suffer an actionable injury from Harris in the future. The opinion noted that it was unclear whether Robinson had made a written request for Harris’s recusal or whether any order had denied such a request.

Claims against Leslie Leitner

The court ruled that Robinson’s complaint did not satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it contained no facts describing what Leitner allegedly did or failed to do. The court further held that any § 1983 claim against Leitner failed to allege her personal involvement in a constitutional violation. It therefore dismissed Robinson’s claims against Leitner for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Leave to amend and disposition

Because it was unclear whether Robinson could allege additional facts supporting a valid claim, the court granted her 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must include all facts and claims Robinson wants the court to consider. The court directed her to identify the relevant people and their titles, describe what each defendant did or failed to do and when and where it happened, describe her injuries, and state the relief sought.

In its conclusion, the court dismissed without prejudice the claims Robinson asserted on behalf of her minor child. It dismissed Robinson’s complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court stated that if Robinson did not timely amend without showing good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for those same reasons, and the court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. No summons would issue at that time. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying appeal fees.