upholding dismissal of claims against Massachusetts trial court on the ground of Eleventh Amendment immunity
How later courts described this case
- upholding dismissal of claims against Massachusetts trial court on the ground of Eleventh Amendment immunity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
AMANDA DICRESCENZO, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
Civil Action No. 23-cv-11268-DJC
)
JUDGE MARY RUDOLPH BLACK and )
SALEM PROBATE & FAMILY COURT, )
)
Defendants. )
)
ORDER
CASPER, J. July 12, 2023
Plaintiff Amanda DiCrescenzo (“DiCrescenzo”), who is proceeding pro se, brings this
action against Massachusetts Judge Mary Rudolph Black and the Family and Probate Court in
Salem, Massachusetts, alleging that Judge Black violated DiCrescenzo’s constitutional rights
during custody proceedings held in the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court concerning
DiCrescenzo’s minor children. DiCrescenzo also filed motions for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, D. 2, and for appointment of counsel, D. 3. For the reasons stated below, the Court
ALLOWS the in forma pauperis motion, D. 2, but DISMISSES this action for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted and DENIES the motion for appointment of counsel, D. 3,
as moot.
I. Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
Upon review of DiCrescenzo’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, D. 2, the
Court concludes that she has adequately demonstrated her inability to prepay the filing fee.
Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS this motion.
II. Review of the Complaint
Federal law authorizes a federal district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint
sua sponte if the claims therein are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief can
be granted, or seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In conducting this review, the Court liberally construes DiCrescenzo’s
complaint because she is proceeding pro se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
As alleged by DiCrescenzo, she has not seen her minor children for over two years because
of the wrongful conduct of Judge Black. D. 1-3 ¶ 4. DiCrescenzo asserts that, on May 7, 2020,
Judge Black “kidnapped [her] children from [her] for exercising [her] legal and natural rights of
letting the children stay with their father even though father and [she] made the decision together
to let the children stay with him.” D. 1-3 ¶ 2. DiCrescenzo further alleges that, by denying
DiCrescenzo’s motion for a continuance due to the father’s tax fraud, Judge Black prevented
DiCrescenzo from being able to have the funds to hire counsel. Id. ¶ 3. DiCrescenzo also claims
that Judge Black wrongfully required her to take twenty-four random drug and alcohol tests (all of
which were negative except for one positive result for alcohol). Id. ¶ 4. In addition, DiCrescenzo
claims that Judge Black’s orders have caused her to lose her jobs with two employers. Id. ¶ 4;
D. 1-4 ¶¶ 8, 10.
As relief, DiCrescenzo seeks reunification with her children, temporary sole legal custody
of her children pending the adjudication of this action, relief from child support obligations
pending the adjudication of this action and the release of audio recording of state court hearings.
D. 1-4 ¶¶ 1-3. In addition, DiCrescenzo asks for $35,500 for “[l]egal and associated court fees”
and “future legal fees to mitigate this matter both in Family and Federal court.” Id. ¶¶ 4, 6.
DiCrescenzo also seeks approximately $31,000 in child support, compensation for loss of
employment due to the state court proceedings, $10,000 for each day she missed with her children
and $20 million for pain and suffering. Id. ¶¶ 5, 8-12.
III. Discussion
A. Judicial Immunity
Under the doctrine of judicial immunity, judges are immune “from liability for damages
for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction.” Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967);
see, e.g., Spiegel v. Massachusetts, No. 16-12654-PBS, 2017 WL 2260067, at *1 (D. Mass. May
22, 2017). As all of DiCrescenzo’s allegations against Judge Black relate to her judicial actions,
DiCrescenzo has failed to state a claim for damages against this defendant.
Any claims against Judge Black for injunctive relief fare no better. A judge enjoys
immunity from claims for injunctive relief unless “a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory
relief was unavailable.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see Spiegel, 2017 WL 226007, at *2. Neither of these
circumstances exist in this action.
B. Eleventh Amendment Immunity
The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution generally is recognized as a
bar to suits in federal courts against a State, its departments and its agencies, unless the State has
consented to suit or Congress has overridden the State’s immunity. See Regents of the Univ. of
Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429 (1997); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n. 14 (1985);
Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (per curiam); Hudson Sav. Bank v. Austin, 479 F.3d
102, 105-06 (1st Cir. 2007). As an arm of the state, the Probate and Family Court enjoys Eleventh
Amendment immunity because the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has not waived its immunity
nor has Congress has overridden it with regards to the claims raised by DiCrescenzo. See Brown
v. Newberger, 291 F.3d 89, 92 (1st Cir. 2002) (upholding dismissal of claims against
Massachusetts trial court on the ground of Eleventh Amendment immunity). Thus, DiCrescenzo
has failed to state a claim for relief against the Probate and Family Court.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court rules as follows:
1. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, D. 2, is ALLOWED.
2. This action is DISMISSED.
3. The motion for appointment of counsel, D. 3, is DENIED as moot in light of the
dismissal of this action.
So Ordered.
/s Denise J. Casper
Denise J. Casper
United States District Judge