245 F. Supp. 3d 316
D. Mass.2017Background
- Pro se Plaintiff Benneth Amadi, a Massachusetts attorney and father of four, challenges actions by DCF employees and a Juvenile Court judge after DCF removed his children in Jan. 2014 and temporarily placed them in foster care.
- DCF developed service plans; the mother cooperated and regained physical custody in May 2014 while DCF retained legal custody; Amadi alleges gender discrimination, conspiracy, retaliation, and denial of access to his children.
- Amadi previously filed a related federal suit dismissed under Younger abstention; his appeal to the First Circuit is pending.
- In this action (filed Sept. 2016) Amadi sought preliminary and ex parte injunctions, an order to show cause against a DCF attorney, and to strike affidavits; defendants moved to dismiss.
- The district court denied the motions for injunctive relief, to show cause, and to strike; declined to sanction the attorney; found Younger abstention applicable to both prior and newly alleged claims; deferred decision on the pending dismissal motion and asked parties to brief whether to stay pending the First Circuit appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether affidavits opposing injunctive relief should be stricken | Bernard and Garofalo affidavits are inadmissible, hearsay, conclusory, false | Affidavits based on personal knowledge and appropriate for injunction context | Denied motion to strike — court may consider such affidavits in preliminary-injunction proceedings |
| Whether Attorney Bernard should be held in contempt for a false affidavit | Bernard lied under oath by later clarifying courtroom statements | Bernard’s affidavit merely clarifies and does not contradict his statements | Denied order to show cause — no basis to sanction Bernard |
| Whether Amadi is entitled to preliminary or ex parte injunctive relief restoring visitation | DCF and Juvenile Court are retaliating, harassing, discriminating and unlawfully preventing visits | Younger abstention, immunity, lack of plausible claims; state has primary interest in child-welfare proceedings | Denied injunctive relief — Amadi unlikely to succeed because Younger abstention applies |
| Whether the case should proceed or be stayed pending appeal in prior action | (implicit) Proceed with merits now | Stay may be appropriate until First Circuit resolves prior appeal | Court deferred ruling on dismissal and ordered memoranda on whether to stay pending First Circuit; denied first motion to dismiss as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (principle of federal abstention where important state proceedings are pending)
- Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415 (state child-welfare proceedings warrant Younger abstention)
- New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350 (definition of proceedings warranting Younger abstention)
- Sirva Relocation, LLC v. Richie, 794 F.3d 185 (First Circuit’s Younger analysis framework)
- Brooks v. New Hampshire Supreme Court, 80 F.3d 633 (application of Middlesex/Younger factors and presumption against judicial-bias claims)
- Casa Marie, Inc. v. Superior Court, 988 F.2d 252 (presumption that state proceedings can vindicate federal claims)
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (presumption of judge impartiality)