ANTONELLI v. THE CAMDEN COUNTY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES
1:17-cv-04177
D.N.J.Jun 20, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Danielle Antonelli sued Judge Melendez, Dwayne Grant, Patricio Ubelle, and the Camden County Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) arising from a February 2011 Family Division custody proceeding, alleging falsified urinalysis, defamation/slander, and civil rights violations.
- Plaintiff claims the alleged falsified urinalysis led to separation from her daughter and seeks $2,000,000 plus other relief for constitutional, civil, ADA, and VAWA violations.
- Complaint filed June 9, 2017; court reviewed the filing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- Court construed federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 for state-law claims.
- Court analyzed claims under standards from Twombly/Iqbal for plausibility and considered defenses of judicial immunity, statute of limitations for defamation, and applicability of § 1983/§§ 1985–86 to the named defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial immunity for Judge Melendez | Melendez committed perjury/ falsified urinalysis and acted wrongfully in the custody proceeding | Judicial acts are protected by absolute judicial immunity | Dismissed with prejudice: Melendez entitled to absolute immunity for judicial acts |
| Defamation/slander (timeliness) | Alleged defamatory statements and slander during Feb 2011 custody proceeding | Defamation claim time-barred by New Jersey one-year statute of limitations | Dismissed without prejudice as time-barred; plaintiff may refile only if she alleges basis for equitable tolling |
| § 1985(3) and § 1986 conspiracy claims vs. private individuals (Grant, Ubelle) | Conspiracy deprived plaintiff of constitutional rights | § 1985(3) protects only limited rights against private conspirators; plaintiff failed to allege protected rights or conspiracy | Dismissed with prejudice as to Grant and Ubelle (futile to amend) |
| § 1983 and related claims vs. DYFS (state agency) | DYFS caused constitutional deprivations; seeks damages | DYFS is an arm of the state and not a "person" under § 1983; §§ 1985–86 also require "persons" | Dismissed with prejudice as to DYFS for § 1983, § 1985, and § 1986 claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir.) (standards for accepting factual allegations at motion to dismiss)
- Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir.) (pleading standard and Twombly/Iqbal framework)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading requires more than labels and conclusions)
- Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302 (3d Cir.) (doctrine of judicial immunity explained)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judicial immunity applies to judicial acts even if erroneous or malicious)
- Petersen v. Meggitt, 969 A.2d 500 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.) (elements of defamation under New Jersey law)
- Feggans v. Billington, 677 A.2d 771 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.) (defamation elements and fault)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (statute-of-limitations can be apparent on the face of the complaint)
- Farber v. City of Paterson, 440 F.3d 131 (3d Cir.) (elements of § 1985(3))
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (§ 1983 requires state action by a "person")
- Rogin v. Bensalem Twp., 616 F.2d 680 (3d Cir.) (relationship between § 1985 and § 1986 claims)