Oliver v. Oakland County Friend of the Court
2:24-cv-12962
| E.D. Mich. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Shari L. Oliver, representing herself pro se, filed a federal lawsuit (her second) regarding unfavorable state court divorce and child custody proceedings in Michigan.
- The state court proceedings awarded sole custody of the children to her ex-husband and required her to pay child support; related appeals and collateral attacks in Michigan courts were unsuccessful.
- Oliver was arrested and incarcerated for failure to pay child support, but was released after the balance was paid.
- Oliver's first federal suit raising similar claims (e.g., under RICO and § 1983) was dismissed and all appeals—including to the Supreme Court—were ultimately denied.
- In the present action, Oliver reasserted prior claims (RICO, § 1983, and state law causes), named additional defendants, and moved for various procedural and injunctive relief.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds such as immunity and failure to state a claim; Oliver also sought default judgments against certain defendants and leave to supplement her complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motions to Dismiss for Immunity | Defendants acted beyond scope or maliciously; immunity shouldn't protect them | Judicial/quasi-judicial/prosecutorial/sovereign immunity applies to actions in official capacity | Dismissed: Defendants entitled to absolute/sovereign immunity |
| Sufficiency of the Complaint under Rule 8 | Complaint states material facts across 323 pages supporting claims | Complaint is overly lengthy, unclear, noncompliant with pleading requirements | Dismissed: Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 |
| RICO & §1983 Claims against Private Parties | Private individuals acted under color of law/conspired with state actors | Private defendants not state actors; allegations are implausible and conclusory | Dismissed: Claims "indisputably meritless" and lack legal basis |
| Default Judgment & Setting Aside Default | Entitled to default judgment where defendants failed to timely respond | Defaults should be set aside for good cause; merits favor addressing case | Defaults set aside; default judgment denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (judges are absolutely immune from suit for judicial acts)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (prosecutors receive absolute immunity for prosecutorial acts)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judges not deprived of immunity even for malicious or erroneous acts)
- Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (state agencies are protected by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must set forth plausible claims for relief)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolous claims may be dismissed as lacking an arguable legal or factual basis)