Zayas v. DeCamp
2:24-cv-00640
| W.D. Wash. | May 16, 2024Background
- Plaintiff, Myriam Zayas, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed suit in federal court alleging improper removal of her child from school.
- Zayas claimed her child was removed by Julie DeCamp, allegedly under the direction of Sylvia Howard and with approval from a state court judge, using a two-year-old dependency order.
- The plaintiff alleged removal occurred without a pre-deprivation hearing and that prior dependency orders used were invalid for removal.
- Zayas asserted constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, specifically due process and equal protection claims, stemming from her child’s removal and alleged racially motivated harassment.
- Plaintiff sought an injunction preventing further contact from the defendant and punitive measures against DeCamp and Howard, plus an arrest order.
- The court reviewed the complaint under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), before summons was issued or service completed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal jurisdiction over child removal | Federal court can intervene as constitutional rights were violated in removal of child | Not directly presented; implied from court's analysis | No jurisdiction—family law matters outside federal scope |
| Validity of dependency order and lack of pre-deprivation hearing | Removal was invalid as order was outdated; constitutional due process rights violated | Not directly presented | No claim stated—removal was by state court order |
| Racial discrimination | Removal was motivated by racial animus and thus violates equal protection | Not directly presented | Complaint fails to state actionable federal claim |
| Appropriateness of federal review | Federal court should review actions of state officials in child removal | Not directly presented | Rooker-Feldman bars federal review of state court judgments |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents federal courts from reviewing state court decisions)
- Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004) (federal courts generally avoid domestic relations issues, reserving such for state courts)