Morris

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------X

MARON VACCARELLA, ESQ.,

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM

v. AND ORDER

25-CV-6005-SJB-JMW

HONORABLE DAVID MORRIS, et al.,

Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------X

BULSARA, United States District Judge:

Pro se Plaintiff Maron Vaccarella has filed two applications to proceed in forma

pauperis (“IFP”). (Appl. to Proceed IFP dated Oct. 24, 2025, Dkt. No. 2; Appl. to Proceed

IFP dated Jan. 7, 2026, Dkt. No. 6). Vaccarella’s request to proceed IFP is granted.

However, for the reasons discussed below, Vaccarella’s claims are dismissed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

LEGAL STANDARD

A complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible

on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “Threadbare recitals of

the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not

suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint must contain more than

“naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement.” Id. (quotations omitted).

In other words, a plausible claim contains “factual content that allows the court to draw

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.;

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint

are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). The

determination of whether a party has alleged a plausible claim is “a context-specific

task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common

sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

A pro se plaintiff’s pleadings are generally held “to less stringent standards than

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per

curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); see also Harris v. Mills, 572

F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that “[e]ven after Twombly,” courts “remain obligated

to construe a pro se complaint liberally”). However, this leniency does not extend to

Vaccarella—a lawyer proceeding pro se. (See Compl. dated Oct. 24, 2025, Dkt. No. 1

¶ 4); see Zappin v. Doyle, 756 F. App’x 110, 111 n.1 (2d Cir. 2019) (“[A] lawyer

representing himself ordinarily receives no such solicitude at all.” (quoting Tracy v.

Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 102 (2d Cir. 2010))). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district

court must dismiss an in forma pauperis action where it is satisfied that the action “(i) is

frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” See also

United States v. Rodriguez, 147 F.4th 217, 225 (2d Cir. 2025) (Ҥ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) requires a

court to dismiss an IFP action or appeal if the court determines that it is frivolous.”).

“An action is frivolous when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless, such

as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the claim is based on

an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d

434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (citations and quotations omitted).

DISCUSSION

Vaccarella commenced this lawsuit on October 24, 2025, asserting claims under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of New York, the Family Court of Suffolk County, the

Suffolk County Support Collection Unit, and two family court judges (Judge David

Morris and Judge Jeffrey Arlen Spinner) (collectively, “Defendants”) for alleged

constitutional violations in his state court child custody and support proceedings, as

well as a claim for defamation. (Compl. ¶¶ 5–9; 24–36). On March 21, 2017, Marcia

Vaccarella, who Vaccarella alleges is not a parent to his child and has no relationship to

the child, filed a petition in state court to obtain custody of Vaccarella’s son. (Id. ¶ 10).

Vaccarella alleges that his due process rights were violated in the state court

proceedings because Marcia Vaccarella lacked standing, the Family Court lacked

jurisdiction, and New York’s “DeFacto Parent” standard is unconstitutional. (Id. ¶ 30).

He also alleges that Defendants held “closed-door conferences” and “issued orders”

with “only court personnel and Petitioner’s and Child’s attorneys, while excluding

[him].” (Id. ¶ 27). As a result, Vaccarella alleges that he has been wrongfully deprived

of seeing his son, and unlawfully charged with child support, including via deductions

from his Social Security award. (Id. ¶ 26). Separately, Vaccarella alleges that

Defendants defamed and ridiculed him in front of colleagues that he practiced with and

covered cases for. (Id. ¶¶ 32–36). He seeks compensatory and punitive damages on

both claims. (Compl. at 8).

I. Section 1983 Claims

A. Domestic Relations Abstention

“Although the domestic relations ‘exception’ to subject matter jurisdiction . . .

does not apply in federal-question cases, the domestic relations abstention doctrine . . .

does.” Deem v. DiMella-Deem, 941 F.3d 618, 621 (2d Cir. 2019). “[T]he existence of a

distinct abstention doctrine for certain domestic relations disputes is supported by the

Supreme Court’s longstanding recognition—in a non-diversity case involving a child

custody dispute—that ‘[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and

wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states, and not to the laws of the

United States.’” Id. at 624 (quoting In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593–94 (1890)). “Under the

domestic relations abstention doctrine ‘[a] federal court presented with matrimonial

issues or issues on the verge of being matrimonial in nature should abstain from

exercising jurisdiction so long as there is no obstacle to their full and fair determination

in state courts.’” Zappin v. Comfort, No. 23-7363, 2024 WL 5001624, at *2 (2d Cir. Dec. 6,

2024) (quoting Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Block, 905 F.2d 12, 14 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam)).

Vaccarella’s Section 1983 claims—all of which concern his state child custody and

support proceedings—are on the verge of being matrimonial in nature and require

abstention. Although framed as a claim for damages, Vaccarella effectively seeks

review of the state court’s child custody and support decisions, which requires

abstention. See, e.g., Phillips v. Schenectady Cnty. Child Support Unit, No. 24-CV-0853,

2025 WL 895035, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2025) (“Courts in this circuit routinely dismiss

actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, due to the domestic relations abstention

doctrine, where the plaintiff is seeking review of child custody [and child support]

proceedings.” (quotation omitted)) (collecting cases), report and recommendation adopted,

2025 WL 1191320 (Apr. 24, 2025), appeal dismissed (2d Cir. Sep. 18, 2025); Bent v. NYC Off.

of Child Support Servs., No. 25-CV-5364, 2025 WL 2938678, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2025)

(applying abstention doctrine where “the claims for which Plaintiff seeks relief arise

directly from the child support action”). Vaccarella cannot avoid the application of

domestic relations abstention by reframing his challenge to his child support as a

lawsuit for damages. See Zappin, 2024 WL 5001624, at *2 (affirming district court’s

dismissal based on domestic relations abstention where plaintiff sought only damages);

Ruchinsky v. Devack, No. 14-CV-2219, 2014 WL 2157533, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2014)

(“[P]laintiff’s Complaint tacitly seeks modification of plaintiff’s child support

obligations by seeking ‘damages’ which are calculated to reverse all of the state court’s

child support decisions to the extent that they were adverse to plaintiff. . . . Plaintiff

cannot avoid operation of the domestic relations exception by re-casting his challenge to

the state court’s child support decisions as a Civil RICO claim.”).

Although Vaccarella asserts that Defendants violated his constitutional rights in

the state proceedings, Vaccarella has not adequately alleged any obstacle to the full and

fair determination of his claims there. See, e.g., Hart v. Thompson, No. 23-CV-3289, 2023

WL 3949041, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2023) (“Although Plaintiff asserts that the family

court has violated his constitutional rights, including his right to due process, he alleges

no facts suggesting that there are any obstacles preventing him from receiving a full

and fair determination regarding whether he owes child support or the amount

owed.”); Evans v. Adams, 714 F. Supp. 3d 119, 125 (E.D.N.Y. 2024) (“Evans’s conclusory

statements accusing the state court of violating the Constitution without more do not

establish an obstacle to a full and fair determination. Evans may raise those

constitutional claims in the state court, including on appeal if necessary.” (citation

omitted)). Abstention is therefore appropriate here.

B. Immunity

The Eleventh Amendment generally bars suit in federal court “against a state or

its agencies absent a waiver of immunity or congressional legislation specifically

overriding immunity.” Mamot v. Bd. of Regents, 367 F. App’x 191, 192 (2d Cir. 2010); see

also Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100–01 (1984) (noting

immunity extends to both damages and injunctive relief); see U.S. Const. amend. XI

(“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit . . .

commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States[.]”). “Eleventh Amendment

immunity ‘extends beyond the states themselves to state agents and state

instrumentalities that are, effectively, arms of a state.’” Bythewood v. New York, No. 22-

2542, 2023 WL 6152796, at *1 (2d Cir. Sep. 21, 2023) (quoting Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d

355, 366 (2d Cir. 2009)). Eleventh Amendment immunity also extends to “state officials

sued in an official capacity.” Bell v. Kaleida Health, No. 25-0366, 2025 WL 2938354, at *2

(2d Cir. Oct. 16, 2025). States may waive their own immunity, or Congress may

abrogate it pursuant to its Fourteenth Amendment power. Beaulieu v. Vermont, 807 F.3d

478, 483 (2d Cir. 2015).

Even if abstention were inapplicable, Vaccarella’s Section 1983 claims against

Defendants are barred by sovereign immunity. It is well-established that Congress did

not abrogate state sovereign immunity for § 1983 claims, Mallet v. N.Y. State Dep’t of

Corr. & Cmty. Supervision, 126 F.4th 125, 138 (2d Cir. 2025), and New York “has not

consented to § 1983 suits in federal court,” Mamot, 367 F. App’x at 192. The State of

New York is entitled to sovereign immunity, see Finn v. New York, No. 23-0126, 2023 WL

7013414, at *2 (2d Cir. Oct. 25, 2023), as is the Suffolk County Family Court, which is an

arm of the state, see Bythewood, 2023 WL 6152796, at *1 (“The New York State Unified

Court System is ‘unquestionably an arm of the state’ that shares in New York’s

immunity to suit.” (quoting Gollomp, 568 F.3d at 368)); Grijalva v. Coward, No. 24-CV-

6365, 2024 WL 5057652, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2024) (“[T]he Suffolk County Family

Court, which is a part of the New York State United Court System, is an arm of the State

of New York.”). The Suffolk County Support Collection Unit “appears to be a branch of

New York State Child Support Services operating under the New York State

Department of Social Services,” and is therefore also an arm of the state entitled to

sovereign immunity. See Phillips, 2025 WL 895035, at *9. To the extent Vaccarella

asserts claims against Judge Morris and Judge Spinner in their official capacities, they

are also entitled to sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Harper v. Bank of New York, No. 25-CV-

1573, 2026 WL 1174506, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2026) (“Eleventh Amendment sovereign

immunity applies not just to lawsuits filed in federal court against States themselves,

but also to state officials acting in their official capacities, including state court judges.”

(citing Chris H. v. New York, 740 F. App’x 740, 741 (2d Cir. 2018))); Chambers v. Stynes,

No. 25-CV-2524, 2025 WL 2917109, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2025) (“[F]or purposes of

sovereign immunity, state agents include state court judges and personnel sued for

damages in their official capacities.” (quotation omitted)).1 Accordingly, if abstention is

inappropriate, Vaccarella’s Section 1983 claims are subject to dismissal on immunity

grounds.

II. Defamation Claim

Vaccarella also brings a separate claim under New York state law for defamation.

(Compl. ¶¶ 31–36). “A district court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’

if it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” Kolari v. N.Y.-

Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). The

Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Vaccarella’s state law

defamation claim, given the early stage of this litigation. Id. (“[I]n the usual case in

which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . . will

point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.”

1 To the extent Vaccarella brings Section 1983 claims against Judge Morris and

Judge Spinner in their personal capacities, they are entitled to judicial immunity.

“[J]udges generally have absolute [judicial] immunity from suits for money damages

for their judicial actions, but not for actions taken in an administrative, legislative, or

executive capacity.” Kellogg v. Nichols, 170 F.4th 20, 24–25 (2d Cir. 2026) (per curiam)

(quotation omitted). “[A]cts arising out of, or related to, individual cases before the

judge are considered judicial in nature.” Id. at 25 (quotation omitted). Vaccarella

asserts Section 1983 claims based solely on conduct by Judge Morris and Judge Spinner

in their judicial capacities—he alleges that they denied him due process by “not

dismissing any and all claims, given that the Petitioner, in the family court, is not the

parent of the [his] son,” (Compl. ¶ 26); that they “held closed-door conferences” and

“issued orders . . . while excluding [him],” (id. ¶ 27); and that they “prevented [him]

from filing further applications for dismissal,” (id. ¶ 29). These allegations concern

“decision[s] in relation to” Vaccarella’s family court case—the “principal hallmark of

the judicial function.” Kellogg, 170 F.4th at 25 (quotation omitted).

(quotation omitted)); Sadallah v. City of Utica, 383 F.3d 34, 40 (2d Cir. 2004) (“[B]ecause

plaintiffs no longer have any viable federal claim, any remaining state law claims

belong in state, rather than federal, court.”).2

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Vaccarella’s motion to proceed IFP is granted,

but his claims are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because the defects

in Vaccarella’s claims are substantive and cannot be cured by repleading, the Court

concludes that amendment would be futile, and leave to amend is denied. See Cuoco v.

Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (“The problem with Cuoco’s causes of action is

substantive; better pleading will not cure it. Repleading would thus be futile.”). The

Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested

to mail a copy of this Order to Vaccarella and to note the mailing on the docket. The

Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in

2 The same analysis applies where the Court abstains from exercising jurisdiction

over all claims within its original jurisdiction under domestic relations abstention,

which results in dismissal of the subject claims. See Deem, 941 F.3d at 620, 625

(affirming district court’s decision dismissing plaintiff’s federal claims based on

domestic relations abstention and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

state law claims).

good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Sanket J. Bulsara

SANKET J. BULSARA

United States District Judge

Date: September 11, 2026

Central Islip, New York