GRIGGS v. MONMOUTH COUNTY FAMILY COURT
3:25-cv-14832
D.N.J.Sep 10, 2025Background
- Derrick Griggs (pro se) filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit seeking reunification with his minor son I.G., alleging unlawful separation for over 500 days and violations of substantive and procedural due process and equal protection. He also sought declaratory relief, damages, attorneys’ fees, and an independent review.
- Complaint named 15 defendants: four state court judges, Monmouth County Family Court and Sheriff’s Office, New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency, several private parties (Elessawi defendants and others), a guardian ad litem, and medical/social work professionals.
- Plaintiff supplied some supporting documents (an independent evaluator, DCP&P investigations, a polygraph, and a social worker report) but omitted key factual details (who has custody, identities/roles of some defendants, timing of custody loss).
- Plaintiff applied for in forma pauperis (IFP). Although he previously earned substantial income, he attested to very limited current resources; the Court granted IFP.
- The Court screened the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismissed it without prejudice for multiple, independent reasons: failure to comply with Rule 8 (impermissible group pleading), judicial immunity for the judge-defendants, many defendants not suable persons under § 1983 or not shown to act under color of state law, and lack of federal jurisdiction to grant the requested custody/injunctive relief (domestic relations exception).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFP eligibility | Griggs lacks funds to pay filing fee due to job loss and limited income | N/A (Court assessed financial affidavit) | IFP granted — Court finds Griggs unable to pay filing fee |
| Pleading sufficiency (Rule 8/group pleading) | Complaint alleges constitutional violations generally against all defendants | Defendants (and court) contend allegations are vague, group-pleaded, and fail to identify conduct by each defendant | Dismissed for failure to meet Rule 8; group pleading impermissible; complaint too confusing/intelligible |
| Judicial immunity (judges named as defendants) | Judges’ actions violated Griggs’ constitutional rights and relief sought (including injunction) | Judicial acts are protected by absolute judicial immunity; injunctive relief against judges is generally barred | Judges immune from suit for judicial acts; claims against them dismissed |
| § 1983 standing as to non-judicial defendants (state actors/persons/color of law) | All defendants contributed to constitutional violations; seeks relief under § 1983 | Many defendants (state agencies, county entities) are not "persons" under § 1983 or not shown to have acted under color of state law | Claims under § 1983 fail as to DCP&P (arm of state), county entities, and unnamed private parties not shown to be state actors |
| Injunctive relief / custody relief (jurisdiction) | Requests immediate reunification and court-ordered therapy / custody changes | Federal court lacks jurisdiction to modify state domestic relations/custody orders (domestic relations exception); state appeals available | Injunctive relief restoring custody unavailable in federal court; request denied/moot after dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judicial immunity protects judges for judicial acts)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must give fair notice; plausibility/clarity requirements)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se complaints held to less stringent standards but must meet Rule 8)
- Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (domestic relations exception bars federal courts from issuing child custody decrees)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (§ 1983 requires state action/color of law)
- Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302 (limits on injunctive relief against judicial officers under § 1983)
- Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 211 F.3d 760 (judicial immunity bars monetary relief against judges)