Oliver v. Oakland County Friend of the Court
2:24-cv-12962
| E.D. Mich. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Shari L. Oliver, representing herself and (improperly) her minor children, filed a federal lawsuit related to her state divorce and child custody proceedings.
- The underlying state court action resulted in Plaintiff's ex-husband being awarded sole custody, and Plaintiff was ordered to pay child support; subsequent appeals and collateral attacks in Michigan state courts were unsuccessful.
- Plaintiff moved to Utah and was subject to interstate enforcement of the Michigan child support order; she was arrested and incarcerated for non-payment until her mother paid the owed balance.
- This is Oliver’s second federal lawsuit relating to the same family law matters, with prior federal and appellate courts dismissing her claims as meritless and immune.
- In this lawsuit, Oliver alleged RICO violations, constitutional violations under § 1983, and various state law torts against judges, court staff, prosecutors, her ex-husband, and attorneys.
- Multiple motions were filed, including motions to dismiss by defendants, motions to strike and for default judgment by Oliver, and other procedural motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states plausible claims under Rule 8 and 12(b)(6) | Claims were sufficiently stated and supported by a detailed (323-page) complaint | Complaint was excessively long, conclusory, and failed to provide a short, plain statement as required | Dismissed; complaint violates Rule 8 standards |
| Application of the domestic-relations exception and Rooker-Feldman doctrine | Federal court has jurisdiction because she seeks damages, not a modification of custody/divorce orders | Claims are barred by exceptions depriving federal court of jurisdiction | Exception and doctrine do not apply; but claims dismissed on other grounds |
| Entitlement of defendants (judges, court staff, prosecutors) to immunity | Defendants' actions exceeded their roles and violated her rights | Defendants acted within judicial/quasi-judicial/prosecutorial capacity and are immune from suit | Defendants are entitled to absolute judicial, quasi-judicial, and prosecutorial immunity |
| Sufficiency and plausibility of RICO and § 1983 claims against private parties | Defendants (including private individuals) conspired and acted under color of law | Claims are fantastical, not plausible, and private parties did not act under color of law | Dismissed as frivolous; no state action/alleged conduct not attributable to state |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility under Rule 8)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (absolute judicial immunity for judges)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (absolute prosecutorial immunity)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judges immune even for mistaken or malicious acts)
- Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (sovereign immunity for arms of the state)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (definition of frivolous claims under § 1915)