. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
_ANTHONY MICKEY, . |. . : Plaintiff, -
HON. MAKEBA GIBBS, fo in her official capacity as Associate Judge, Civil Action No. 26-2178-TDC. Circuit Court for Charles County, and - □ STATE OF MARYLAND, . _through the Administrative Office of the - , Courts, | Defendants. . .
| | MEMORANDUM ORDER = □ Self-represented Plaintiff Anthony Mickey has filed this civil action against Defendants Judge ti of the Circuit Court for Charles County, Maryland (“the state court”) and the’ of Maryland which he alleges that during a child custody hearing, Judge Gibbs violated , his fundainental parental rights and right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment
‘to the United a Constitution, failed to accommodate his disability in violation of the
_ Americans with ‘ees Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and engaged in disability discrimination. in ‘of the ADA and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ‘ Mickey has filed-a Motion for.a Preliminary Injunction in which he requests that □ this Court require i Gibbs to be recused from any further proceedings involving him, order a
of his proceedings before Judge Gibbs pending reassignment to another judge, and direct the ’
State of Maryland | provide him with efféctive accommodations for his hearing impairment in
. future court proceedings. .
The Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is fully briefed. Upon review of the submitted materials, fe-com finds(that no hearing is necessary. D. Md. Local R. 105.6. Mickey has also fileda Motion for save to File a Supplemental Pleading, ECF No. 10, which has not been opposed and thus will be lated For the reasons stated below, the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction will be DENIED. | = BACKGROUND Mickey alleges that he is a parent who was denied a reasonable accommodation for □□□ hearing disability dasing a September 23, 2025 custody hearing in the state court before Judge ~ Gibbs. specitialy Mickey asserts that he has a ““‘localization’ deficit” based upon which he “can □
hear only what he i looking at,” and that he “reads lips to understand speech.” Compl. { 9, ECF No. 1. At the-outset of the custody hearing, after Judge Gibbs inquired whether Mickey was having hard time hearing her, he stated, “Tam hearing impaired” and “I wear a hearing aid.” Hre. Tr. at 11, Mot. Ex. A, ECF No. 1-3. Judge Gibbs then stated that the court could provide a listening if needed, d which Mickey responded, □□ don’t necessarily need a listening device” and stated, “I would do ter with, like, some captioning, but if you don’t have that, then that’s fine.” Id. > Later during the hearing, Judge Gibbs stated, “lt doesn’t sound like you’re hearing □□□ and again offered 1 listening device. Id. at 45. “Mickey responded, “I don’t need it. I’m fine. I don’t need it” and | sta “IT]t’s my localization. I generally can hear what I’m looking at.” Id. Judge Gibbs then sh “Is that effective for you, sin?” and again offered a listening aid, which □ Mickey again ‘elied Id. . - □ At another in in the hearing, Judge Gibbs inquired if Mickey could hear another
_ individual in the sobrtroom and asked, “[D]oes she have to face you so you can hear her?” Jd. at
97, Mickey responded “no,” but Mary Mickey, Mickey’s mother and a witness, stated, “[Y]eah, because he can’t han to which Judge Gibbs responded, “Okay.” Id. Mickey alleges that this exchange shows that Judge Gibbs instructéd his mother to turn away from him despite knowing >
that he relies-on vida cues to hear the proceedings. Mickey also alleges that.at another point in the proceedings, se Gibbs looked at him and stated, ‘T think something is wrong with you.” Compl. 1 8. Mickey further asserts that Judge Gibbs made various errors on evidentiary rulings and that she — the evidentiary rules in an “unequal” manner. Id. 4 25-29. At the end of the hearing, Judge Gibbs ordered an “immediate mid-week transfer” of Mickey’s daughter to the child’s mother, with the child then returning to Mickey for the upcoming weekend. Id. J 32; Hrg. 210-1. a Based on these events, Mickey alleges, in the following numbered counts: (1) □ violation □ of his parental rights and right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution by ordering a custody transfer without sufficient evidence; (2) a failure to provide a reasonable scvomnodetion of his hearing disability, in violation of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.
12132; (3) disability discrimination, in violation of Title II of the ADA; and (4) a claim under 42 ‘US.C. § 1983 for 1 violation of procedural due process and disability discrimination in violation — □
of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendinent. _ DISCUSSION In his Motch Mickey seeks a preliminary injunction requiring the.recusal of Judge Gibbs any further proceedings involving him, a stay of any of his remaining proceedings before Judge Gibbs, and the provision of real-time captioning or another accommodation in all of his future court proceedings in the state court. To obtain a preliminary injunction, Mickey must establish that: (1)|there is a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) there is a likelihood of
‘ineparable harm pi of preliminary relief: (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def, Council, Inc., 555 US. 7, 20 (2008). The di and fourth factors merge when the Government is the opposing party. See Nken v, Holder, 556U.S. 41 8, 435 (2009). Each of the four factors must be satisfied for the moving -to obtain a preliminary injunction. See Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 320-21 (4th Cir. 2013). : □□ □□ I. Likelihood of Success on the Merits .
Mickey has bo shown that he is likely to succeed.on the merits. AS to his ADA claims, the
_ ADA provides, in shevan part, that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of
. such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied ‘the benefits of the services, "programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42
. The present record does not show that J uidge Gibbs excluded Mickey from participating in his custody i otherwise subjected Mickey to discrimination. Mickey alleges that Judge Gibbs discriminated against him in that she “acknowledged that Plaintiff could not hear” □□□ - “proceeded without captioning,” that she “told Plaintiff *s mother, his lip-reading assistant, to turn and that she told him, “I think something is wrong with you.” Mot Prelim. Inj.§1;Compl. □□ 12, 16, 18. sper, the excerpts of the hearing transcript submitted by Mickey largely. contradict. these spaions The transcript reflects that Judge Gibbs repeatedly asked Mickey if he could hear the nee to which Mickey repeatedly responded that he was fine. The identified excerpt does not show that Judge Gibbs told Mickey’s mother to turn away from him, and Mickey has arvided no.excerpt showing that Judge Gibbs stated that “I think something is
. wrong with you.” domo 16, 18; Hrg. Tr. at 97-98; Supp. Hig. Tr. at 195, 198, ECF No. 10-15.
i = 4
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
_ANTHONY MICKEY, . |. . : Plaintiff, -
HON. MAKEBA GIBBS, fo in her official capacity as Associate Judge, Civil Action No. 26-2178-TDC. Circuit Court for Charles County, and - □ STATE OF MARYLAND, . _through the Administrative Office of the - , Courts, | Defendants. . .
| | MEMORANDUM ORDER = □ Self-represented Plaintiff Anthony Mickey has filed this civil action against Defendants Judge ti of the Circuit Court for Charles County, Maryland (“the state court”) and the’ of Maryland which he alleges that during a child custody hearing, Judge Gibbs violated , his fundainental parental rights and right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment
‘to the United a Constitution, failed to accommodate his disability in violation of the
_ Americans with ‘ees Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and engaged in disability discrimination. in ‘of the ADA and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ‘ Mickey has filed-a Motion for.a Preliminary Injunction in which he requests that □ this Court require i Gibbs to be recused from any further proceedings involving him, order a
of his proceedings before Judge Gibbs pending reassignment to another judge, and direct the ’
State of Maryland | provide him with efféctive accommodations for his hearing impairment in
. future court proceedings. .
The Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is fully briefed. Upon review of the submitted materials, fe-com finds(that no hearing is necessary. D. Md. Local R. 105.6. Mickey has also fileda Motion for save to File a Supplemental Pleading, ECF No. 10, which has not been opposed and thus will be lated For the reasons stated below, the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction will be DENIED. | = BACKGROUND Mickey alleges that he is a parent who was denied a reasonable accommodation for □□□ hearing disability dasing a September 23, 2025 custody hearing in the state court before Judge ~ Gibbs. specitialy Mickey asserts that he has a ““‘localization’ deficit” based upon which he “can □
hear only what he i looking at,” and that he “reads lips to understand speech.” Compl. { 9, ECF No. 1. At the-outset of the custody hearing, after Judge Gibbs inquired whether Mickey was having hard time hearing her, he stated, “Tam hearing impaired” and “I wear a hearing aid.” Hre. Tr. at 11, Mot. Ex. A, ECF No. 1-3. Judge Gibbs then stated that the court could provide a listening if needed, d which Mickey responded, □□ don’t necessarily need a listening device” and stated, “I would do ter with, like, some captioning, but if you don’t have that, then that’s fine.” Id. > Later during the hearing, Judge Gibbs stated, “lt doesn’t sound like you’re hearing □□□ and again offered 1 listening device. Id. at 45. “Mickey responded, “I don’t need it. I’m fine. I don’t need it” and | sta “IT]t’s my localization. I generally can hear what I’m looking at.” Id. Judge Gibbs then sh “Is that effective for you, sin?” and again offered a listening aid, which □ Mickey again ‘elied Id. . - □ At another in in the hearing, Judge Gibbs inquired if Mickey could hear another
_ individual in the sobrtroom and asked, “[D]oes she have to face you so you can hear her?” Jd. at
97, Mickey responded “no,” but Mary Mickey, Mickey’s mother and a witness, stated, “[Y]eah, because he can’t han to which Judge Gibbs responded, “Okay.” Id. Mickey alleges that this exchange shows that Judge Gibbs instructéd his mother to turn away from him despite knowing >
that he relies-on vida cues to hear the proceedings. Mickey also alleges that.at another point in the proceedings, se Gibbs looked at him and stated, ‘T think something is wrong with you.” Compl. 1 8. Mickey further asserts that Judge Gibbs made various errors on evidentiary rulings and that she — the evidentiary rules in an “unequal” manner. Id. 4 25-29. At the end of the hearing, Judge Gibbs ordered an “immediate mid-week transfer” of Mickey’s daughter to the child’s mother, with the child then returning to Mickey for the upcoming weekend. Id. J 32; Hrg. 210-1. a Based on these events, Mickey alleges, in the following numbered counts: (1) □ violation □ of his parental rights and right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution by ordering a custody transfer without sufficient evidence; (2) a failure to provide a reasonable scvomnodetion of his hearing disability, in violation of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.
12132; (3) disability discrimination, in violation of Title II of the ADA; and (4) a claim under 42 ‘US.C. § 1983 for 1 violation of procedural due process and disability discrimination in violation — □
of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendinent. _ DISCUSSION In his Motch Mickey seeks a preliminary injunction requiring the.recusal of Judge Gibbs any further proceedings involving him, a stay of any of his remaining proceedings before Judge Gibbs, and the provision of real-time captioning or another accommodation in all of his future court proceedings in the state court. To obtain a preliminary injunction, Mickey must establish that: (1)|there is a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) there is a likelihood of
‘ineparable harm pi of preliminary relief: (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def, Council, Inc., 555 US. 7, 20 (2008). The di and fourth factors merge when the Government is the opposing party. See Nken v, Holder, 556U.S. 41 8, 435 (2009). Each of the four factors must be satisfied for the moving -to obtain a preliminary injunction. See Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 320-21 (4th Cir. 2013). : □□ □□ I. Likelihood of Success on the Merits .
Mickey has bo shown that he is likely to succeed.on the merits. AS to his ADA claims, the
_ ADA provides, in shevan part, that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of
. such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied ‘the benefits of the services, "programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42
. The present record does not show that J uidge Gibbs excluded Mickey from participating in his custody i otherwise subjected Mickey to discrimination. Mickey alleges that Judge Gibbs discriminated against him in that she “acknowledged that Plaintiff could not hear” □□□ - “proceeded without captioning,” that she “told Plaintiff *s mother, his lip-reading assistant, to turn and that she told him, “I think something is wrong with you.” Mot Prelim. Inj.§1;Compl. □□ 12, 16, 18. sper, the excerpts of the hearing transcript submitted by Mickey largely. contradict. these spaions The transcript reflects that Judge Gibbs repeatedly asked Mickey if he could hear the nee to which Mickey repeatedly responded that he was fine. The identified excerpt does not show that Judge Gibbs told Mickey’s mother to turn away from him, and Mickey has arvided no.excerpt showing that Judge Gibbs stated that “I think something is
. wrong with you.” domo 16, 18; Hrg. Tr. at 97-98; Supp. Hig. Tr. at 195, 198, ECF No. 10-15.
i = 4
Moreover, the excerpts ‘show that ‘Mickey’s-only reference to captioning “occurred after Judge □□ Gibbs inquired welne he was having a hard time hearing her and offered a listening device, and even then, Mickey] did not state that he needed captioning to understand the proceedings and □ instead stated only that “ I would do better with, like, some captioning, but if you don’t have that, ‘then that’s fine.” he Treatll. | . oe sccontingy ‘the Court finds that based on the’present record, Mickey has not shown that
likely to socelt on the merits of his reasonable accommodation and disability discrimination
. claims under the aba See Neal E,Carolina Univ., 53 F.4th 130, 146 (4th Cir. 2022) (upholding agrant of summary sigment on an ADA discrimination claim in part because the plaintiff had not requested a disability related accommodation). For similar reasons, the Court finds that the record
_~ does not show that si is likely to succeed on the merits of his equal protection claim. See Morrison v. Garraghty, 239 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 2001) (“To succeed on an equal protection claim, a plaintiff mg first demonstrate that he has been treated differently from others with whom
_ he is simileny tuted arid that the unequal treatment was the result of intentional or purposeful discrimination.”). ee es
As to the claim that the custody hearing violated Mickey ’s F ourteenth Amendment right to □
procedural due mos and his fundamental parental rights, Mickey is unlikely to succeed because abstention doctrine identified in Younger v. Harris, 401 US. 37 (1971), likely applies. Under Younger, fedetel wt ordinarily should ‘abstain from. interfering with ongoing state court proceedings, sich J by staying or enjoining the state court proceedings or by displacing the state
- court by ruling on sitions challenges to ih state court’s actions. Id at AL, 43; Moore □□ Sims, 442 US, asl 423, 428 a 979). When the state court proceedings (1) constitute an ongoing state judicial moveeding (2) implicate important state interests, -and (3) provide an adequate
opportunity for constitutional challenges to be raised, Younger abstention is appropriate. Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). Younger abstention is ‘particularly warranted when “exercise of the federal judicial power would disregard the comity veonee! the States and the National Government.” Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 481. usu aoe. oe :
. In Moore, te United States Supreme Court held that a federal district court should have applied Younger abstention to refrain from hearing claims that ongoing state juvenile court. proceedings involving custody of children violated the United States Constitution. Moore, 442 USS. at 418, 435. Noting “a strong policy against federal intervention in state judicial processes in □
the absence of. area and immediate irreparable injury to the federal plaintiff,” the Court held that Younger abstention should apply in such circumstances if there was an “adequate opportunity to
the constitutional claims” in the state court proceedings. Jd. at 423, 430. Here, the ste court docket shows that Mickey’s state family law case is ongoing. Opp’n Ex. 3, ECF No. 14.3, As in Moore, Mickey’s claims implicate important state interests, as “Tflamily relations are a traditional area of state concern.” ld -at 435. Mickey contends that he has no adequate opportunity to raise his federal constitutional challenges in state court because the state forum is biased, and that Younger abstention does not apply because the custody hearing was conducted in bad elite ‘However, Mickey provides no evidence of bias or bad faith. Rather, the: submitted hearing □□□ excerpts strongly suggest that Judge Gibbs diligently sought to ‘confirm that Mickey could hear and understand the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Younger abstention likely applies, such that Mickey has failed to show a likelihood of success on his sonata claims. .
II. Remaining Factors Because Mickey has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, the Court need not and thus will not fully address the remaining factors. Pashby, 709 F.3d at 320-21. Nevertheless, the Court notes that in this instance, the public interest does not weigh in favor of issuing a preliminary injunction. Where the Younger doctrine “articulated the ‘national policy forbidding federal courts to stay or enjoin pending state court proceedings except under special circumstances,” in part because federal courts must give “‘proper respect for state functions,” Robinson v. Thomas, 855 F.3d 278, 285 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Younger, 401 U.S. at 41), it is not in the public interest for this Court to issue an injunction relating to this state court custody proceeding, particularly where Mickey has provided insufficient evidence of a violation of federal rights, CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Mickey’s Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Pleading, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED. 2. Mickey’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 3, is DENIED. 3. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Memorandum Order to Mickey.
Date: August 24, 2026 SS THEODORE D. CHYANG } United States District ¥wdge