In re: Villona Maryash

Background

Villona Maryash, appearing without a lawyer, filed a complaint consisting of a letter and attachments that included orders from the New York Family Court, Kings County. The court said it was unclear whom Maryash intended to sue and what relief she sought. The complaint appeared to criticize decisions by a Family Court Judge, a Family Court Child Custody Referee, and/or a Family Court Child Support Magistrate concerning child custody and child support proceedings.

The court had previously allowed Maryash to proceed without paying filing fees. Because documents attached to the complaint revealed the full name of at least one minor child and the birth dates of two people, the court directed the Clerk to restrict electronic access to those submissions to case participants.

Reasons for dismissal

The court considered several possible interpretations of the complaint:

- Ongoing Family Court proceedings: To the extent Maryash asked the federal court to intervene in pending custody or support proceedings, the court applied the Younger abstention doctrine. That doctrine generally prevents a federal court from interfering with certain ongoing state-court proceedings, including proceedings involving a state’s interest in enforcing its court orders. The court said Maryash had not alleged bad faith, harassment, or serious and immediate irreparable injury that would justify federal intervention.

- Concluded Family Court proceedings: To the extent Maryash asked the federal court to overturn final custody or support decisions, the court applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine prevents a federal district court from functioning as an appeals court for final state-court judgments. The court therefore dismissed those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the federal court lacked legal authority to decide them.

- Possible request for criminal prosecution: The court also understood Maryash possibly to be asking for the criminal prosecution of other people. It dismissed any such claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because decisions to bring criminal charges belong to prosecutors, not private individuals or federal courts. The court stated that Maryash lacked standing—the required legal connection to seek that relief.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action. It denied leave to amend because it found that the defects could not be corrected by changing the complaint. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Maryash permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to issue a judgment dismissing the action.