Turner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

LESLIE TURNER, et al., ) CASE NO. 5:26-cv-00603

)

Plaintiffs, ) JUDGE BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN

)

v. )

)

SUMMIT COUNTY BOARD OF ) OPINION AND ORDER

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

Before the Court is pro se Plaintiffs Leslie Turner’s (“Turner”) and Niya Otoo’s (“Otoo”)

(collectively “Plaintiffs”) Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs also filed

Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminry Injunction (Doc. 2) and Motion to

Expedite Consideration (Doc. 3), which the Court DENIES by separate Order.

I. BACKGROUND

On March 13, 2026, Turner filed a fee-paid civil complaint in this case under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, on behalf of herself and her adult daughter, Otoo, against the Summit County Board of

Developmental Disabilities (“SCBDD”), Summit County Probate Court Investigator Connie

Swain, and Summit County Probate Court Magistrate Clinton Householder (collectively

“Defendants”). (Doc. 1.) Her Complaint pertains to Otoo’s guardianship proceeding that is

pending in Summit County Probate Court. (Id. at ¶ 2; see In the Matter of Guardianship of: Niya

Otoo, Case No. 2025-GA-00018 (Summit Cnty. Pr. Ct.).)

Turner alleges SCBDD initiated a complaint in probate court to have her removed as

Otoo’s guardian. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 18.) She contends Defendants violated her and her daughter’s

federal rights in connection with the removal proceedings. Turner alleges the removal complaint

filed by SCBDD in the guardianship case is “fraudulent on its face,” based on a “fabricated

report and perjured testimony of . . . Court Investigator Connie Swain,” and that Magistrate

Householder has “demonstrated profound bias” in the case by issuing orders imposing “punitive

and unconstitutional conditions” on her, including prohibiting her from filing documents pro se.

(Id. at ¶¶ 3, 19, 31.)

For relief, she seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendants violated her rights under the

First and Fourteenth Amendments and her daughter’s rights under the Americans with

Disabilities Act; a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction “enjoining Defendants

from proceeding with the removal hearing” and enforcing “unconstitutional orders”; and

compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 8-9.)1

In addition to the Complaint, Turner filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and

Preliminary Injunction seeking to “enjoin Defendants from proceeding with a guardianship

removal hearing scheduled for April 13, 2026.” (Doc. 2 at 14.) On March 25, 2026, she also

filed a “Motion to Expedite Consideration” of her temporary restraining order. (Doc. 3.) For the

reasons stated in the Court’s separate order, the motions for emergency relief are denied. (See

4/13/2026 Non-Document Order.)

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have a duty to police the boundaries

of their jurisdiction in every case. Answers in Genesis of Kentucky, Inc. v. Creation Ministries

Intern., Ltd., 556 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2009) (“[F]ederal courts have a duty to consider their

subject matter jurisdiction in regard to every case and may raise the issue sua sponte.”). The

1 For ease and consistency, record citations are to the electronically stamped CM/ECF document

and PageID# rather than any internal pagination. Complaint citations are to the internal

paragraph notations.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks

subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3).

Under the abstention doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44-45, 91 S.

Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971) and Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 17, 107 S. Ct.

1519, 95 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1987), federal courts must abstain from exercising jurisdiction in cases

interfering with state proceedings involving important state interests absent extraordinary

circumstances. Federal court abstention is mandated where a state-court proceeding is criminal,

quasi-criminal, or civil in nature where federal court intervention “unduly interfere[s] with the

legitimate activities of the States.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 44; see also Watts v. Burkhart, 854 F.2d

839, 844-48 (6th Cir. 1988).

Abstention is appropriate where: (1) a state proceeding is ongoing; (2) the state

proceeding implicates an important state interest; and (3) the state proceeding affords an

adequate opportunity to raise federal concerns. Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State

Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432, 102 S. Ct. 2515, 73 L. Ed. 2d 116 (1982); Leveye v. Metro. Pub.

Def. Office, 73 F. App’x 792, 794 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Younger).

All three factors supporting abstention are present.2 First, Turner asks the Court to

intervene in a pending state guardianship proceeding. Second, such a proceeding implicates

important state interests. See Meyers v. Franklin Cnty. Ct. of C.P., 23 F. App’x 201, 206 (6th

Cir. 2001) (upholding district court order dismissing federal civil rights complaint requesting

declaratory and injunctive relief from guardianship order issued by Ohio juvenile court); Hart v.

2 Further, Turner cannot assert claims on behalf of Otoo because an individual may not appear

pro se to represent anyone other than herself in federal court. See Shepherd v. Wellman, 313

F.3d 963, 970 (6th Cir. 2003). While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) allows the guardian

of an incompetent person to sue on the incompetent’s behalf, the rule does not allow the guardian

to appear pro se. A guardian must appear through counsel.

Bond, No. 14 CV 205, 2014 WL 3532908, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96068, at *10-11 (N.D. Ohio

July 15, 2014) (state of Ohio has important interests in probate court guardianship cases).

As to the third Younger requirement, the relevant inquiry is whether the state proceedings

afford an adequate opportunity to raise the federal claims. Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 430, 99

S. Ct. 2371, 60 L. Ed. 2d 994 (1979). Courts initially “must presume that the state courts are

able to protect the interests of [a] federal plaintiff,” and the burden of establishing the inadequacy

of the state courts rests on the plaintiff. Kelm v. Hyatt, 44 F.3d 415, 420 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing

Pennzoil, 481 U.S. at 15). Where a plaintiff has not attempted to present her federal claims in

state court proceedings, the federal court should assume that state procedures will afford an

adequate remedy in the absence of “unambiguous authority to the contrary.” Pennzoil, 481 U.S.

at 15. Here, although Turner complains that “[t]he state court removal proceeding is a sham,” is

based on false testimony, and references the emergency motion she filed in the state court case

on March 9, 2026 (Doc. 2 at 4, 6), she has not shown she attempted to assert the federal claims

she raises in this lawsuit in the Summit County Probate Court guardianship proceeding or cited

to unambiguous authority demonstrating she is precluded by state procedures from doing so.

“And there is no suggestion in the [C]omplaint that any purported claim in this federal lawsuit is

barred in the state action.” Miller v. Richland Cnty. Child. Servs., No. 25cv1675, 2025 WL

3085033, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217842, at *11-12 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2025).

Accordingly, under Younger, the Court must abstain from interfering with Plaintiffs’

pending state court proceedings.3 See Hart, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96068, at *10-11 (declining

to assert jurisdiction over claims challenging state guardianship proceedings); Poole v. Cabinet

3 This case does not implicate any exception to the Younger doctrine. See Ada–Cascade Watch

Co., Inc. v. Cascade Res. Recovery, Inc., 720 F.2d 897, 902 n. 2 (6th Cir. 1983) (listing

exceptions to Younger).

for Health and Fam. Servs., 21-CV-22, 2021 WL 2096713, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97772, at *5-

6 (W.D. Ky May 24, 2021) (same).

I. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, this matter is STAYED pending final resolution of Jn the

Matter of Guardianship of: Niya Otoo, Case No. 2025-GA-00018 (Summit Cnty. Pr. Ct.). This

case is administratively closed, subject to reopening if Plaintiffs timely file a motion to reopen

demonstrating the above-listed state court matter has reached finality, meaning resolution by

settlement agreement or exhaustion of all appeals. No claims or defenses are waived as a result

of this Order. Any motion to reopen must be filed no later than fourteen (14) days after the state

court matter is fully resolved. Failure to timely move the Court to reopen may result in an order

denying the motion and all claims being dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: April 13, 2026 249 □□□

BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE