Niveen Ismail v. County of Orange, 693 F. App'x 507

Background

Niveen Ismail appealed the dismissal and summary judgment of § 1983 and § 1985 claims arising from California juvenile-court dependency proceedings that terminated her parental rights to her son A.I. in 2008.
She alleged Orange County social workers submitted false reports and testimony (fraud on the juvenile court) and that adoptive parents Michael and Shelby Ford conspired with them; she sought damages and reinstatement of parental rights.
One separate claim accused social worker Julie Fulkerson of violating Ismail’s privacy by disclosing a court-ordered psychological evaluation to a detective investigating an alleged kidnapping attempt.
The district court dismissed with prejudice the fraud-based and related claims against the social workers (except the Fulkerson privacy claim) under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine; Orange County was dismissed as derivative; the Fords were dismissed as nonstate actors.
The district court later granted summary judgment for Fulkerson on qualified immunity grounds. Ismail appealed; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal court jurisdiction is barred by Rooker–Feldman for claims attacking juvenile-court rulings and seeking reversal	Ismail argued her claims are § 1983/§ 1985 claims alleging social-worker fraud and constitutional violations, not a de facto appeal	Defendants argued the suit seeks relief from state-court judgments and is thus a de facto appeal barred by Rooker–Feldman	Held: Rooker–Feldman bars the fraud-based claims because they are inextricably intertwined with state-court rulings and seek relief from those judgments (affirmed)
Whether allegations of extrinsic fraud avoid Rooker–Feldman	Ismail argued extrinsic fraud claims can proceed in federal court	Defendants argued fraud was litigated and rejected in state court (not extrinsic)	Held: Extrinsic-fraud exception inapplicable because Ismail does not allege she was prevented from litigating fraud in state court; claims were already litigated and rejected
Whether Ismail had standing to bring a facial challenge to California’s parental-rights statute	Ismail characterized her statutory challenge as facial and typically cognizable in federal court	Defendants argued lack of standing because Ismail has no concrete, imminent threat of future harm under the statute	Held: Dismissed for lack of standing—no imminent or particularized threat shown
Whether Fulkerson is liable for privacy violation in disclosing psych evaluation and whether qualified immunity applies	Ismail argued disclosure violated her constitutional privacy rights	Fulkerson argued she responded to a detective’s formal request supported by a state-court order and advice of County Counsel	Held: Qualified immunity applies; a reasonable social worker would not have known disclosure under those circumstances violated clearly established rights
Whether the Fords are state actors subject to § 1983 liability	Ismail contended the Fords conspired with social workers and should be treated as state actors	Fords argued they are private adoptive parents and not state actors	Held: The Fords are not state actors; dismissal proper (no state-action alleged or briefed)
Whether pro se plaintiff should have been granted leave to amend	Ismail requested leave to amend fraud claims	Defendants argued amendment would be futile due to Rooker–Feldman, collateral estoppel, statutes of limitation, and Heck	Held: Majority denied leave as futile because fraud issues were litigated in state court; dissent would have allowed amendment because futility wasn’t "absolutely clear"

Key Cases Cited

Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (establishing that lower federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state-court judgments)
D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (holding federal district courts cannot review final state-court decisions and articulating Rooker–Feldman scope)
Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir.) (explaining when a federal suit is a de facto appeal under Rooker–Feldman)
Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855 (9th Cir.) (discussing extrinsic fraud exception to Rooker–Feldman)
Canatella v. California, 304 F.3d 843 (9th Cir.) (standing requirements for prospective or declaratory relief challenging state statutes)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 335 (Cal.) (requirements for collateral estoppel under California law)