“[U]nder Younger and Sims federal district courts may not interfere with ongoing child custody proceedings.”
How later courts described this case
- “[U]nder Younger and Sims federal district courts may not interfere with ongoing child custody proceedings.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
DERRICK RYAN GORDON,
Plaintiff,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-00801
CABINET SECRETARY BILL
CROUTCH, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, the action was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of
findings of fact and recommendations regarding disposition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn
submitted his Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) to the court
on January 28, 2021, in which he recommended that the court deny
plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and
costs, dismiss plaintiff’s “Petitions,” and remove this matter
from the court’s docket.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
the parties were allotted fourteen days plus three mailing days
in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s
Findings and Recommendations. On January 27, 2021, Gordon filed
his objections to the PF&R. See ECF Nos. 8 and 9. On February
3, 2021, he also filed additional memoranda in support of this
case. See ECF Nos. 10 and 11. On February 3, 2021, he filed a
sealed affidavit and the next day he filed a motion for a
subpoena and another pleading. See ECF Nos. 13, 14, and 15.
After the deadline for filing objections, Gordon continued to
file further documents in support of his claims. See ECF Nos.
16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. With respect to plaintiff’s
objections, where they are responsive to the PF&R, the court has
conducted a de novo review.*
Plaintiff initiated this civil action after his minor
children were removed from his custody and care in September
2020. He does not seek money damages but asks for the
restoration of his family and an injunction against defendants
Cabinet Secretary Bill Croutch [sic], the West Virginia
Department of Health and Human Resources, and CPS Agent Allison
Kelly.
In the PF&R, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn found that the
complaint was subject to dismissal. First, given that plaintiff
appeared to be challenging ongoing state custody/neglect
proceedings, the PF&R recommended that the court abstain from
hearing those claims pursuant to the doctrine set forth in
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Alternatively, Magistrate
Judge Aboulhosn found that the “domestic relations exception” to
federal jurisdiction might apply given that Gordon was
* Gordon’s motions, ECF Nos. 14, 20, 21, and 24 are DENIED.
2
essentially asking the court to invalidate a State Court’s order
regarding the removal of his children from his home. Finally,
with respect to plaintiff’s allegations as to certain defendants,
he concluded that they might entitled to qualified immunity.
Plaintiff’s objections fail to address the actual reason
the PF&R recommended dismissal, i.e., Younger abstention.
Rather, he focuses on some of the alternative doctrines upon
which the magistrate judge recommended dismissal. For that
reason, his objections are irrelevant and unresponsive to the
reasoning contained in the PF&R. In any event, the court’s
review of the record confirms that the abstention doctrine set
forth in Younger v. Harris counsels against hearing this case.
In Younger [v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)]
and its progeny, the Supreme Court has reiterated
“a strong federal policy against federal-court
interference with pending state judicial
proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.”
Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar
Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982). The reason for
restraining federal courts from exercising
jurisdiction in these types of actions is the
notion of “comity,” which includes
a proper respect for state
functions, a recognition of the
fact that the entire country is
made up of a Union of separate
state governments, and a
continuance of the belief that the
National Government will fare best
if the States and their
institutions are left free to
perform their separate functions in
their separate ways.
3
Younger, 401 U.S. at 44. “The [Younger
abstention] doctrine recognizes that state courts
are fully competent to decide issues of federal
law and has as a corollary the idea that all
state and federal claims should be presented to
the state courts.” Richmond, Fredericksburg &
Potomac R.R. Co. v. Forst, 4 F.3d 244, 251 (4th
Cir. 1993).
Although Younger involved state criminal
proceedings, the Supreme Court has expanded its
application to “noncriminal judicial proceedings
when important state interests are involved.”
Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 432. “Where vital state
interests are involved, a federal court should
abstain unless state law clearly bars the
interposition of the constitutional claims.” Id.
(internal quotations omitted) (quoting Moore v.
Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 426 (1979)). In Middlesex,
the Supreme Court articulated the following
three–part test: “first, do [these proceedings]
constitute an ongoing state judicial proceeding;
second, do the proceedings implicate important
state interests; and third, is there an adequate
opportunity in the state proceedings to raise
constitutional challenges.” Id. at 432; see also
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Maryland Comm'n on Human
Relations, 38 F.3d 1392, 1396 (4th Cir. 1994).
Younger abstention applies only to “three
exceptional categories” of cases: (1) “parallel,
pending state criminal proceeding[s]”; (2) “state
civil proceedings that are akin to criminal
prosecutions”; and (3) “civil proceedings
involving certain orders . . . uniquely in
furtherance of the state courts’ ability to
perform their judicial functions.” Sprint
Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 78 (2013).
These three categories of cases define the scope
of Younger. Id. at 82.
The ongoing state court proceeding must be
“the type of proceeding to which Younger
applies.” New Orleans Public Serv., Inc. v.
Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 367
(1989).
4
Jonathan R. V. Justice, CIVIL ACTION No. 3:19-cv-00710, 2021 WL
3195020, at *8-9 (S.D.W. Va. July 28, 2021) (Johnston, C.J.).
The court agrees with Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn that
this court should abstain from hearing this case pursuant to
Younger. See Liedel v. Juvenile Court of Madison Cty., Ala., 891
F.2d 1542, 1546 (11th Cir. 1990)(“[U]nder Younger and Sims
federal district courts may not interfere with ongoing child
custody proceedings.”); Booker v. Mecklenburg Cty. Dept. Of
Social Servs., 3:19-cv000672-RJC-DSC, 2020 WL 9455319, at *2
(W.D.N.C. Jan. 16, 2020) (dismissal under Younger appropriate
where case concerned “ongoing child custody matters clearly
implicat[ing] important state interests”); Clark v. Deskins, ,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-01381, 2019 WL 2651143, at *2 (S.D.W.
Va. June 27, 2019) (“Child custody and other domestic matters
would be better handled by the state courts which have the
experience to deal with this specific area of the law.”)
(Johnston, C.J.) (internal quotation and citation omitted); Reese
v. Maryland, Civil Action No. GJH-17-1487, 2017 WL 2712957, at *2
(D. Md. June 21, 2017) (dismissing pursuant to Younger a § 1983
and § 1985 action arising out of State court child support and
custody proceedings); Manship v. Brothers, No. 1:11cv1003 (JCC),
2011 WL 4408477, at *2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 21, 2011) (noting that
Younger “has been expanded to require abstention from child
custody and welfare determinations” and “to the extent that there
5
are ongoing state proceedings regarding the custody of the
minors, this Court abstains from exercising jurisdiction”). Nor
has Gordon offered any reasons to justify an exception to Younger
abstention. Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.
For the foregoing reasons, the court adopts the Findings
and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn, DENIES
plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and
costs, DISMISSES plaintiff’s “Petitions,” and directs the Clerk
to remove this matter from the court’s docket.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to plaintiff, pro se.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of September, 2021.
ENTER:
Raut O Dabo
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge