The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
SARINA BLEVINS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No.
) 23-10561-FDS
TANASIA PORTIS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
ORDER
SAYLOR, C.J.
Plaintiff Sarina Blevins has filed a civil action against Tanasia Portis, who is a social
worker employed by the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (“DCF”), and
Juvenile Court Judge Helen A. Brown Bryant. According to plaintiff, the defendants have
violated her federal rights with regard to a pending care-and-protection proceeding concerning
her minor child. Blevins asks that this court order that the case pending in the Suffolk Juvenile
Court be closed. She does not make a demand for monetary compensation.
The court declines to exercise jurisdiction over his matter to avoid interfering with the
pending state proceedings. Under the doctrine of Younger abstention, see Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37 (1971), “a federal court must abstain from hearing a case if doing so would ‘needlessly
inject’ the federal court into ongoing state proceedings.” Coggeshall v. Mass. Bd. of Registration
of Psyc., 604 F.3d 658, 664 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting Brooks v. N.H. Supreme Ct., 80 F.3d 633,
637 (1st Cir. 1996)). Younger abstention is even appropriate where litigants “claim violations of
important federal rights,” In re Justices of Superior Ct. Dept. of Mass. Trial Ct., 218 F.3d 11, 17
(1st Cir. 2000), as long as the federal claims can be “raised and resolved somewhere in the state
process,” Maymó-Meléndez v. Álvarez-Ramírez, 364 F.3d 27, 36 (1st Cir. 2004) (emphasis
added). “Except in the most extraordinary cases, a federal court must presume that state courts,
consistent with the imperatives of the Supremacy Clause, see U.S. Const. art. VI, are fully
competent to adjudicate federal constitutional and statutory claims properly presented by the
parties.” Casa Marie, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 988 F.2d 252, 262 (1st Cir.1993) (footnote omitted).
Here, the court would “needlessly inject” itself the pending juvenile court proceeding if it
were to consider plaintiff’s claims. The court has no reason to believe that plaintiff will not have
an opportunity to raise all relevant issues—including her challenge to the jurisdiction of the
Juvenile Court—in the state court, whether in front of the trial court or on appeal. Furthermore,
the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, precludes a federal court from enjoining a state-court
proceeding, subject to certain exceptions not relevant here.
For the foregoing reasons, the court orders that this action be DISMISSED without
prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be terminated as moot.
So ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
Dated: May 2, 2023 Chief Judge, United States District Court