75 F.4th 62
2d Cir.2023Background
- In May 2017 Niagara County CPS removed Dominique Hunter’s minor son C.W. after concerns about neglect and alleged corporal punishment; CPS filed a neglect petition in Family Court.
- Family Court entered fact-finding orders, required services, and later (April 2019) transferred guardianship/custody to the county and authorized consent to adoption; Hunter filed a notice of appeal on May 21, 2019.
- While Hunter’s state appeal remained pending, she sued CPS employees, Family Court judges, and related defendants in federal district court seeking damages and an injunction returning C.W. to her custody.
- The district court dismissed Hunter’s federal complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine and denied leave to amend and extra time to serve certain defendants as futile.
- The Second Circuit reversed the dismissal as to jurisdiction, vacated the denials of leave to amend and additional time to serve, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Rooker–Feldman when a state-court appeal is pending | Rooker–Feldman does not apply because state proceedings had not ended when she filed the federal suit | Rooker–Feldman bars the federal suit because Hunter ‘‘lost’’ in Family Court before filing | Rooker–Feldman does not apply when a state-court appeal remains pending; jurisdiction is assessed as of the filing date |
| Whether Rooker–Feldman bars claims for pre-judgment misconduct (constitutional torts, search/seizure, defamation) | These claims arise from defendants’ earlier misconduct and are independent of the state judgment | The federal claims are inextricably intertwined with and would require rejection of the Family Court judgment | Some claims alleging pre-judgment misconduct are independent and not barred by Rooker–Feldman; inquiry focuses on whether the state judgment caused the injury |
| Denial of leave to amend and denial of extra time to serve | Denial was based on the erroneous jurisdictional ruling and thus was improper; amendment could be allowed | Denial was proper because any relief would be futile as it would require overruling the Family Court | Vacated; district court’s denial premised on lack of jurisdiction was erroneous and should be reconsidered on remand |
| Timing principle for federal jurisdiction vs. state-court finality | Jurisdiction must be evaluated at the moment the federal complaint is filed | Claim that Hunter was a state-court loser before filing | Court confirms jurisdiction is assessed at filing; because appeal was pending, plaintiff could not be conclusively deemed a state-court loser |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (defines narrow scope of Rooker–Feldman and requires state proceedings be "ended" before doctrine applies)
- E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Lloyd’s & Cos., 241 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2001) (federal courts assess subject-matter jurisdiction as of the moment the complaint is filed)
- Hoblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (discusses Rooker–Feldman structure and standards)
- Vossbrinck v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., 773 F.3d 423 (2d Cir. 2014) (articulates four-part Rooker–Feldman test used in the circuit)
- Malhan v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of State, 938 F.3d 453 (3d Cir. 2019) (holds Rooker–Feldman inapplicable when state proceedings have not ended)
- Mothershed v. Justices of the Sup. Ct., 410 F.3d 602 (9th Cir. 2005) (explains when interlocutory state rulings can trigger finality for Rooker–Feldman purposes)