TIJERINA v. FORTIER
1:25-cv-00499
D.D.C.Apr 17, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Jessica Ann Tijerina, a Texas resident, filed a pro se complaint against her ex-husband, two Idaho judges, and her ex-husband’s attorney regarding an Idaho state court custody and divorce proceeding.
- The complaint challenges actions taken in the Idaho state domestic case, alleging wrongful removal of the children from Texas and due process violations by the state court.
- Tijerina seeks an order from the District of Columbia federal court to return custody of the children and to void the Idaho state court judgment, as well as over $33 million in damages.
- Plaintiff filed multiple motions alongside the complaint, including requests for a temporary restraining order, habeas corpus, and a writ of prohibition, all raising similar complaints.
- The plaintiff did not provide the required addresses for parties nor establish diversity or federal question jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal court jurisdiction over state custody | DC court should review Idaho custody actions | State courts have exclusive jurisdiction | Federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction |
| Judicial immunity | Judges acted outside jurisdiction, violated due process | Judges acted in official capacity, are immune | Judges are absolutely immune from suit |
| Proper venue | Suit is proper in D.C. | Parties/events in Idaho/Texas only | Venue improper in D.C. |
| Sufficiency of jurisdictional facts | Complaint adequate as filed | Lacks citizenship & addresses | Failed to allege jurisdictional facts |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state court decisions; Rooker-Feldman doctrine)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (federal courts cannot act as appellate forums over state court judgments)
- Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992) (domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction prohibits federal court review of child custody)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (judicial immunity for acts taken in judicial capacity)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (judicial immunity is broad even for actions allegedly taken in error or with malice)