Rivera v. Reichl, 3:25-cv-00537

Linda Rivera, proceeding pro se, filed a federal suit related to ongoing state court custody proceedings in Monroe County, Pennsylvania.
Rivera claims violations of her due process rights and alleges a conspiracy among defendants and the state court to deprive her of contact with her children.
She requests federal relief including a return of child custody, a declaration against the state court's actions, investigation into the family court system, and monetary damages.
Rivera sought an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt state divorce proceedings she argues are hindering her parental rights.
She alleges judicial bias, ethical violations, and "RICO-like" conduct by the defendants and state court, further claiming possible retaliation for pursuing federal relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the federal court can enjoin ongoing state court proceedings	State court is violating her parental rights and due process; URGENT need for federal intervention	Federal intervention is prohibited by the Anti-Injunction Act	Relief is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, TRO denied
Applicability of Anti-Injunction Act exceptions	No specific exception argued	No exception applies; strict reading urged	No exception to bar applies
Claims of judicial misconduct and conspiracy in state court	Defendants and court are conspiring against her	No admissible evidence provided; legal bar applies	Allegations do not overcome statutory bar
Appropriateness of emergency injunctive relief	Immediate harm requires injunction	No legal basis for federal injunction	Injunctive relief not permitted

Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140 (1988) (explains scope of the Anti-Injunction Act)
Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 398 U.S. 281 (1970) (strong presumption against federal interference with state courts)
In re Diet Drugs, 282 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2002) (exceptions to Anti-Injunction Act are construed narrowly)