Gassel v. Tiffany, 1:17-cv-00081

Pro se plaintiff Edward Gassel filed a § 1983 suit alleging state child-protection workers (including Joe Tiffany) wrongfully removed his children in March 2017 and engaged in misconduct during home visits and referrals.
Complaints describe specific encounters: Tiffany allegedly exposed the child, inspected the home without permission, and reported the home unsafe; other workers demanded removal of pets and inspected the house. Plaintiff alleges these actions led to removal and an intent to obtain benefits.
Plaintiff seeks return of his children and monetary damages for emotional distress.
Plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel; the court granted IFP and denied appointment of counsel as moot.
The court performed initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and evaluated pleading sufficiency under Ashcroft v. Iqbal and standards for pro se complaints.
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on jurisdictional grounds (domestic relations exception) and for failure to state a plausible claim; it also treated the complaint as alleging official-capacity claims and noted Eleventh Amendment/§ 1983 limits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal court has jurisdiction over claims seeking to alter child custody	Gassel asks federal court to find misconduct and return his children	Removal and custody decisions are matters for state courts; federal jurisdiction is barred by domestic relations exception	Dismissed under the domestic relations exception; federal court cannot change state custody determinations
Whether complaint states a plausible § 1983 claim	Allegations of officials’ misconduct and improper reports support constitutional claim and damages	Allegations are conclusory and lack sufficient factual detail to show a constitutional violation	Dismissed for failure to state a claim under Iqbal/Twombly standards
Capacity in which defendants are sued (official vs. individual)	Complaint does not specify capacity; plaintiff seeks relief against named state workers	When silent, complaint is treated as alleging official-capacity claims, which are equivalent to suing the state and are not "persons" under § 1983	Court construed claims as official-capacity; such claims against the State/Missouri are barred under Will and dismissed
Whether leave to proceed IFP or appointment of counsel should be granted	Gassel sought IFP and counsel	Court evaluated financial affidavit and procedural posture	IFP granted; appointment of counsel denied as moot due to dismissal

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain factual content supporting plausible claim)
Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (child-custody matters are for state courts; domestic relations exception)
Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (states and state officials sued in official capacity are not "persons" under § 1983)
Barber v. Barber, 62 U.S. 582 (domestic relations exception origin)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se complaints are liberally construed)
Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282 (pro se plaintiffs must allege facts supporting claims)
Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912 (courts are not required to assume facts not alleged)