Maretta-Brooks v. Hanuszczak
5:18-cv-00426
N.D.N.Y.Apr 26, 2018Background
- Pro se plaintiff Rochelle Maretta-Brooks sued 17 defendants (several state judges, the Onondaga County DA and County Attorney, other individuals, and an unidentified Syracuse police officer) in April 2018, attaching voluminous but unorganized materials.
- Complaint used multiple court forms (Bivens, Title VII, ADA, §1983) but lacks coherent factual allegations tying defendants to specific wrongdoing; appears to concern child-custody removals and an March 21, 2018 arrest.
- Plaintiff invoked a variety of federal criminal and statutory provisions and sought large, escalating damages and return of her children.
- Plaintiff moved for in forma pauperis (IFP) status and for appointment of pro bono counsel; the IFP affidavit was incomplete (missing income amounts), so IFP was denied without prejudice.
- The magistrate judge found the complaint legally deficient (vague, conclusory, and likely barred in many respects) and recommended dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), but with leave to amend except for specified claims the court said could not be repleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to IFP | Brooks says she cannot pay filing fees and submitted declarations. | Defendants argue incompleteness and court notes prior abusive filings. | IFP denied without prejudice due to incomplete affidavit; warned about potential IFP restrictions for abusive filings. |
| Appointment of counsel | Brooks requests pro bono counsel to prosecute the case. | No defendants answered; court emphasizes limited pro bono resources and threshold substantive showing required. | Denied without prejudice because complaint lacks indication of a cognizable claim. |
| Sufficiency of complaint under § 1915(e) and Rule 8 | Brooks alleges multiple statutory and constitutional violations (child custody, deprivation of rights) but provides few facts. | Defendants assert immunity, jurisdictional bars, and absence of private rights under cited statutes. | Complaint recommended for dismissal under §1915(e)(2) for failing to state a claim; dismissal without prejudice with leave to amend except for certain claims barred from repleading. |
| Specific legal bars (judicial/prosecutorial immunity; Rooker–Feldman; domestic relations exception; non-cognizable statutes) | Brooks pleads claims against judges/prosecutor and cites criminal statutes and other federal provisions. | Defendants rely on absolute judicial/prosecutorial immunity, Rooker–Feldman jurisdictional bar, domestic relations exception, and that many cited statutes do not create private causes of action. | Court concluded these doctrines likely preclude many claims (judicial/prosecutorial immunity, Rooker–Feldman, domestic relations exception) and that several cited statutes do not provide private civil remedies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (establishing Bivens remedy for certain constitutional violations by federal officers)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (judicial absolute immunity for acts within judicial capacity)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (absolute prosecutorial immunity for conduct intimately associated with judicial phase)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions insufficient; factual plausibility required)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (federal courts lack jurisdiction to act as appellate tribunals over state court judgments)
- D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (scope of federal review over state court decisions)
- Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction over divorce, alimony, child custody)