709 F. App'x 87
2d Cir.2018Background
- Pro se plaintiff Joyelle Bukowski sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging temporary New York family-court custody/visitation orders, naming a family court judge, CPS workers and lawyer, the child’s law guardian, the child’s father, and the father’s attorney.
- The Eastern District of New York sua sponte dismissed the complaint without leave to amend, citing the domestic-relations exception and the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, and entered judgment for defendants.
- Bukowski appealed; the Second Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and considered all procedural and substantive grounds supporting dismissal.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that Younger abstention requires dismissal (or at least bar to injunctive/declaratory relief) while the state custody proceedings are ongoing.
- The court separately addressed money-damages claims and affirmed their dismissal because many defendants were immune (absolute judicial, prosecutorial, and witness immunity), some defendants were not state actors, and Bukowski’s allegations of conspiracy were conclusory.
- The court also affirmed denial of leave to amend as futile because the complaint, even read liberally, suggested Bukowski lacked a viable claim rather than merely having pleaded it poorly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court may grant injunctive/declaratory relief affecting ongoing state custody proceedings | Bukowski sought federal relief to remedy alleged constitutional injuries from state orders | Defendants argued federal courts must abstain while state custody proceedings are ongoing (Younger) | Court held Younger abstention bars federal injunctive/declaratory relief interfering with ongoing custody proceedings |
| Whether Bukowski may pursue money damages in federal court before state proceedings conclude | Bukowski sought damages under § 1983 for constitutional harms | Defendants argued damages claims fail or are barred by immunity or non‑state‑actor status | Court held damages claims fail on the merits and need not be stayed; dismissed for immunity and other defects |
| Whether various defendants are entitled to absolute immunity | Bukowski alleged misconduct by judge, prosecutor, and witnesses | Defendants claimed absolute judicial, prosecutorial, and witness immunity | Court held judge, prosecutor, and testifying CPS workers are protected by absolute immunity |
| Whether private parties (father, father’s attorney, law guardian) are state actors or plausibly alleged to conspire with state actors | Bukowski alleged conspiracy between private actors and CPS to deprive her of rights | Defendants argued they are private actors and allegations are conclusory | Court held private defendants are not state actors and conspiracy allegations were conclusory, so § 1983 claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (federal courts must abstain from interfering with ongoing state proceedings in certain circumstances)
- Falco v. Justices of the Matrimonial Parts of Supreme Court of Suffolk Cty., 805 F.3d 425 (2d Cir. 2015) (Younger applies to ongoing state custody proceedings)
- Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (witnesses are absolutely immune from civil liability for their testimony in judicial proceedings)
- Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2009) (judicial immunity principles and their application)
- Cornejo v. Bell, 592 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2010) (prosecutorial absolute immunity in civil suits)
- Milan v. Wertheimer, 808 F.3d 961 (2d Cir. 2015) (requirements for state action under § 1983)
- Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2002) (complaints alleging conspiracy must contain factual detail beyond conclusory assertions)