Baskerville v. Richmond County Family Court, 1:19-cv-00602

Pro se plaintiff Kevin Baskerville sued Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), Forensic Psychology Services of New York, PLLC, and the Law Office of Ralph J. Porzio, PLLC, alleging they failed to protect his daughter from abuse and failed to enforce a protection order.
He asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment and procedural due process), a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 242, and state-law claims for negligence and emotional distress; he alleged emotional harm and lost income.
The court previously gave leave to amend; defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
The court dismissed any claims brought on behalf of the plaintiff’s minor daughter because a pro se litigant may not represent others.
The court held the complaint is essentially a child-custody/domestic-relations dispute and dismissed the federal claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the domestic relations exception; denied the emergency pretrial conference request.
The court alternatively explained it would have dismissed for failure to state a claim: the complaint lacked factual detail and § 242 does not create a private right of action; state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice to pursue in state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction / domestic relations exception	Federal court can hear constitutional claims arising from defendants' conduct regarding child's welfare	Dispute arises from ongoing state family-court custody/welfare proceedings and is within domestic-relations sphere	Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under domestic relations exception
First Amendment claim	Defendants prevented Baskerville from expressing concerns	Conduct arises from family-court custody/welfare context, not a federal matter	Dismissed as part of domestic-relations dispute
Procedural due process claim	Defendants blocked him from presenting evidence to refute claims against him	Allegations tied to family-court proceedings and custody determinations	Dismissed as part of domestic-relations dispute
18 U.S.C. § 242 claim	Defendants violated his civil rights under § 242	§ 242 does not create a private right of action	Dismissed; § 242 claim fails as no private right
Pro se representation of minor	Plaintiff included claims on behalf of his daughter	Pro se litigant cannot represent others	Claims on behalf of daughter dismissed; only plaintiff’s claims considered

Lerner v. Fleet Bank, 318 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2003) (comparative standards for 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) review)
Starr v. Georgeson S'holder, Inc., 412 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005) (pleaded facts must be accepted as true on motion to dismiss)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to assumed truth)
Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2000) (Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal for lack of statutory/constitutional power)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (liberal construction of pro se complaints)
Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992) (domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction)
Tait v. Powell, 241 F. Supp. 3d 372 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (application of domestic-relations exception to bar federal intrusion into custody matters)
Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant #1, 537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2008) (pro se pleadings read liberally when alleging civil-rights violations)
Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Found. of Buffalo, Inc., 906 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1990) (pro se litigant cannot represent others)
Powell v. Kopman, 511 F. Supp. 700 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) (§ 242 does not provide private right of action)
Durant, Nichols, Houston, Hudgson & Cortese-Costa P.C. v. Dupont, 565 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2009) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)