Crystal Allman and Gary Allman v. Shenandoah Valley Social Services, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed Crystal and Gary Allman's amended complaint concerning state child-protection and custody proceedings. The court held that sovereign immunity, judicial immunity, and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived it of jurisdiction over the requested damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief. The court also denied leave to file a second amended complaint, concluding that the proposed claims would be futile.

Holdings

1. The Eleventh Amendment barred the Allmans' damages claims against Virginia, its agencies and instrumentalities, SVDSS, the Augusta County Judicial System, and Judge Jones in her official capacity. Virginia had not waived its immunity, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not abrogate it.
2. Judge Jones was absolutely immune from the Allmans' damages claims because the challenged conduct consisted of judicial acts performed within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the juvenile and domestic-relations court.
3. The court lacked jurisdiction to issue the requested declaratory judgment because sovereign immunity barred claims against the state and official-capacity defendants, and judicial immunity barred retrospective declaratory relief against Judge Jones.
4. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived the federal district court of jurisdiction to order the return of the children or a new state-court hearing because the requested relief would require review and rejection of state-court judgments and rulings.
5. Leave to amend was properly denied as futile for the proposed claims against the existing defendants and for the proposed Fourth Amendment, substantive due process, procedural due process, access-to-courts, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, fraud, conspiracy, and most First Amendment retaliation claims. The proposed First Amendment retaliation claim against Grace Burdett was denied without prejudice because amendment might be possible if plaintiffs alleged her employer, state-actor status, timing, causation, and retaliatory motive.

Questions Presented

1. Whether sovereign immunity barred the Allmans' claims for damages against the State Defendants, state and local social-services entities, and Judge Jones in her official capacity.
2. Whether judicial immunity barred the Allmans' claims against Judge Jones in her individual capacity.
3. Whether sovereign and judicial immunity barred the requested declaratory relief.
4. Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived the federal district court of jurisdiction to issue an injunction requiring return of the children or a new state-court hearing.
5. Whether the proposed second amended complaint would be futile as to the proposed Fourth Amendment, substantive due process, procedural due process, access-to-courts, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, fraud, conspiracy, and First Amendment retaliation claims.
6. Whether the court could or should disqualify attorney James Glick from representing parties in current or future proceedings.

Disposition

dismissed