E.A. v. Mary Gardner
929 F.3d 922
7th Cir.2019Background
- Dana Alden and his ex-wife shared custody after a 2009 divorce; in 2012 the state court-appointed psychologist Mary Gardner evaluated the children and found "severe alienation tactics."
- Based on Gardner’s evaluations the Illinois state court awarded sole custody to the mother and limited Alden to supervised visitation; Illinois appellate courts affirmed and Alden’s subsequent motions to modify were denied.
- After three unsuccessful state-court outcomes (2012 custody decision; 2013 and 2015 modification attempts), Alden filed a § 1983 suit in federal court against Gardner, purporting to act as next friend for his children.
- Alden’s federal complaint did not challenge Gardner’s conduct as an expert witness but attacked the IMDMA as unconstitutional: (1) as a First Amendment restriction on parental speech considered in custody decisions; and (2) as an Equal Protection violation for applying a lower preponderance standard to divorced-custody modifications versus clear-and-convincing proof for parental-rights termination.
- The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, concluding Alden lacked standing and that his complaint, in effect, sought federal review of state-court rulings barred by Rooker–Feldman.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Gardner was not the proper defendant, Alden lacked a viable Article III case-or-controversy against her, and his claims were ones he should have raised in state court (preclusion/Rooker–Feldman concerns). The court also flagged abusive litigation and ordered Alden to show cause why sanctions should not follow.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Case or controversy against Gardner | Alden contends he can sue Gardner (including in her official capacity) to declare the IMDMA unconstitutional and vindicate his children’s rights | Gardner (and court) argue she does not enforce state law, merely provided expert information to the state court; she cannot be the source of the injury | No standing against Gardner; plaintiff sued the wrong party and cannot trace the alleged injury to her actions |
| Rooker–Feldman / preclusion of federal review of state judgments | Alden seeks relief that would effectively invalidate state-court custody determinations | District court and Seventh Circuit say Alden could have raised constitutional claims in state proceedings and federal review of state judgments is barred | Rooker–Feldman and preclusion principles bar using federal court to relitigate issues he could have raised in state court |
| Official-capacity suit as a way to sue the State | Alden argues he effectively sued the State by naming Gardner in her official capacity and that the Attorney General should defend the law | Court explains Will v. Michigan State Police and Ex Parte Young: official-capacity suits are suits against the State and Illinois was not sued; Will bars suing the State under § 1983 | Official-capacity suit does not permit Alden to sue the State via Gardner; Will forecloses relief against the State under § 1983 in that form |
| Remedy and sanctions for abusive litigation | Alden asks for declaration invalidating statute and relief from custody consequences | Gardner argues she is not responsible; court notes Alden repeatedly relitigated state custody and sued an improper defendant, causing unnecessary burden | Court affirmed dismissal and ordered Alden to show cause why appellate sanctions and bar authorities should not be notified; noted possibility of fee-shifting and other sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (establishes that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review final state-court judgments)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (applies Rooker to bar federal review of state-court judicial decisions)
- Will v. Michigan State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (states are not "persons" under § 1983; official-capacity suits are suits against the State)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (permits suits against state officials for prospective relief to enjoin ongoing violations of federal law)
- Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (real-party-in-interest principles concerning who may defend a statute)
- Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (limits collateral attacks on state-court judgments)
- Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (distinguishes permissible federal actions from forbidden attempts to obtain federal review of state-court judgments)
- Golden v. Helen Sigman & Associates, Ltd., 611 F.3d 356 (preclusion bar on reopening matters state court resolved or could have resolved)
- Milchtein v. Chisholm, 880 F.3d 895 (Seventh Circuit discussion reinforcing limits on federal review of state-court decisions)