Rogers v. Lopez

Background

Phillystina Rogers filed the action without a lawyer and invoked federal-question jurisdiction. She alleged that Family Court Judges Cynthia Lopez and Michael Millsap had “kidnapped” her child from Blythdale Children’s Hospital and that the judges and New Alternatives for Children had withheld the child since January 2020. She also alleged that Family Court judges and child-protection services were trying to adopt her child and that Judge Lopez had required her to obtain mental-health services.

Rogers attached Family Court orders concerning the child, including a 2018 order finding the child neglected and authorizing temporary removal, a 2019 finding of neglect, and a 2022 temporary order of protection. She did not specify the relief she sought. The opinion states that the caption spells one judge’s name “Millsap,” while the body and court documents use “Milsap.”

Screening and claims brought for the child

Because Rogers received permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, the court was required to screen the complaint. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without lawyers liberally, those complaints still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Rogers indicated that she was suing on behalf of her minor child. The court held that a nonlawyer parent generally cannot represent a child in federal court without a lawyer. It therefore dismissed without prejudice any claims Rogers was asserting on the child’s behalf.

Claims against the Family Court judges

The court explained that judges have absolute immunity from suits seeking damages for actions taken within their judicial responsibilities. That protection generally covers acts arising from or related to cases before the judge, even when a plaintiff alleges bad faith or malicious conduct. It does not apply when a judge acts outside the judge’s judicial capacity or in the absence of jurisdiction.

The court found that Rogers’s allegations concerned acts related to individual Family Court cases and did not show that Judges Lopez and Milsap acted outside their judicial responsibilities or jurisdiction. The court therefore dismissed Rogers’s claims against the judges because they sought monetary relief from defendants protected from such relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). The dismissal was with prejudice.

Claims against New Alternatives for Children

The court found that Rogers had already raised claims involving the child against New Alternatives for Children in a pending related action in the same district. It dismissed the claims against New Alternatives for Children from this case without prejudice to pursuing them in that pending action under docket number 23-CV-03612 (PGG) (OTW).

Amendment, state-law claims, and appeal

Courts generally allow a self-represented plaintiff to amend a complaint to correct defects, but the court found that amendment would be futile here and declined to grant leave to amend. It also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over Rogers’s state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

The court directed the clerk to enter judgment. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Rogers’s fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.