31 F.4th 487
6th Cir.2022Background
- Lindke and Moeller (parents of a minor) engaged in a bitter custody dispute; Moeller obtained two Michigan domestic personal protection orders (PPOs) against Lindke, the second entered March 31, 2016 under Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2950.
- Moeller later sued Lindke in state court for violating the 2016 PPO based on online harassment; Judge John Tomlinson found most speech protected but held that a Facebook "tag" violated the PPO.
- Instead of appealing in Michigan courts, Lindke sued Judge Tomlinson (in his official capacity) and St. Clair County Sheriff Mat King in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin enforcement of the PPO statute as unconstitutional.
- The district court dismissed: it concluded no Article III subject‑matter jurisdiction existed as to Judge Tomlinson (he acted adjudicatively) and Lindke failed to plead a plausible claim against Sheriff King.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed: judges who act solely in an adjudicatory capacity under a state statute are not adverse parties for Article III purposes, and Lindke’s allegations against the sheriff were conclusory and insufficient under Iqbal/Twombly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Tomlinson is a proper defendant such that an Article III case or controversy exists | Lindke challenged the constitutionality of Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2950 and sought declaratory/injunctive relief against Tomlinson as an enforcer of the statute | Tomlinson acted only as a neutral adjudicator applying the PPO statute and thus has no adverse interest; no Article III controversy exists | Judge Tomlinson acted adjudicatively; no Article III case or controversy; federal court lacks subject‑matter jurisdiction over claims against him |
| Whether the lack of adversity is jurisdictional or merely a merits Rule 12(b)(6) defect | Lindke argued procedural posture complicated relief options; implied jurisdictional question could be avoided | Defendants and district court treated lack of adversity as jurisdictional; Sixth Circuit agreed absence of case/controversy deprives court of jurisdiction | Sixth Circuit treats lack of adversity as jurisdictional (12(b)(1)) and declines to reach merits against the judge |
| Whether Lindke pleaded a plausible § 1983 claim against Sheriff King | Lindke alleged King "effectuated" and enforced the PPO (e.g., via LEIN) and failed to stop enforcement of an unconstitutional order | King’s enforcement acts were not pleaded with factual detail; merely conclusory allegations; entering info in LEIN is not equivalent to detention or mandatory enforcement | Complaint failed Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility pleading; dismissal of claims against Sheriff King affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Justices of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 695 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1982) (judge acting in adjudicatory capacity is generally not a proper § 1983 defendant challenging statute)
- Brandon E. ex rel. Listenbee v. Reynolds, 201 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2000) (judges as neutral adjudicators are not enforcers or administrators for § 1983 challenges)
- Allen v. DeBello, 861 F.3d 433 (3d Cir. 2017) (distinguishes judges who adjudicate from those who administer/enforce statutes)
- Georgevich v. Strauss, 772 F.2d 1078 (3d Cir. 1985) (judges were proper defendants where statute vested them with enforcement/administrative authority)
- Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 142 S. Ct. 522 (2021) (Article III requires adversity; no case or controversy when judge merely adjudicates under a statute)
- Lindke v. Lane, 523 F. Supp. 3d 940 (E.D. Mich. 2021) (prior district court decision holding adjudicating judge not a proper § 1983 defendant; instructive here)
- McNeil v. Community Prob. Servs., LLC, 945 F.3d 991 (6th Cir. 2019) (contrast: sheriff‑level statutory duties to detain supported surviving pleading where facts alleged)