941 F.3d 618
2d Cir.2019Background
- Deem filed for divorce and joint custody in Westchester County; Family Court Judge Arlene Gordon-Oliver presided and granted a temporary protection order (TPO) limiting Deem's contact with his children.
- Deem, a licensed attorney, sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and state law against his wife, the marriage counselor, the court-appointed children’s attorney, Judge Gordon-Oliver, and others, alleging conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and interference with his familial association.
- After Deem filed an amended complaint naming the judge, Gordon-Oliver recused, adjourned a hearing, and extended the TPO; Deem then sued her for damages.
- The district court sua sponte dismissed: it held the judge entitled to absolute judicial immunity and, as to the remaining defendants, abstained under the domestic-relations abstention doctrine articulated in American Airlines, Inc. v. Block.
- The district court dismissed all federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims; Deem appealed the dismissal of his federal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Family Court Judge Gordon-Oliver is immune from suit | Deem argued judge’s post-recusal extension of the TPO was wrongful and not protected | Defendants argued the judge acted in judicial capacity and is immune from suit | Court: Judge entitled to absolute judicial immunity; claims dismissed as frivolous |
| Whether the domestic-relations exception to jurisdiction bars federal-question suits | Deem relied on Williams to argue domestic-relations doctrines preclude federal-court review | Defendants relied on Ankenbrandt and Barber framework to deny federal relief | Court: Domestic-relations exception (statutory to diversity jurisdiction) does not apply to federal-question §1331 suits |
| Whether domestic-relations abstention (American Airlines) applies in federal-question cases | Deem argued Williams limited such abstention in federal-question cases | Defendants argued American Airlines’ abstention remains valid and applicable | Court: American Airlines abstention applies; district court properly abstained because issues are "on the verge" of matrimonial matters and state courts can fully and fairly decide them |
| Whether dismissal of federal claims and refusal of supplemental jurisdiction was proper | Deem sought federal adjudication of his claims | Defendants argued abstention and immunity warranted dismissal and remand to state court | Court: Affirmed dismissal of federal claims on abstention grounds and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims |
Key Cases Cited
- American Airlines, Inc. v. Block, 905 F.2d 12 (2d Cir. 1990) (articulates domestic-relations abstention for federal courts when disputes are matrimonial or "on the verge" of such)
- Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992) (recognizes domestic-relations exception to diversity jurisdiction but does not foreclose abstention in federal-question cases)
- Williams v. Lambert, 46 F.3d 1275 (2d Cir. 1995) (addresses matrimonial exception under Ankenbrandt; did not overrule American Airlines abstention)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (judicial immunity protects judges for acts within judicial capacity absent complete absence of jurisdiction)
- Mills v. Fischer, 645 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2011) (claims dismissed on basis of absolute judicial immunity are frivolous under §1915)
- In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586 (1890) (early Supreme Court recognition that domestic relations are primarily matters of state law)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (abstention doctrine premised on respect for ongoing state proceedings)
- Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943) (abstention grounded in need to avoid interference with complex state administrative processes)