UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SHANNON A. BONDOC,
Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 25 - 1416 (SLS) v. Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan
JAMES BLAKE, JR.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Shannon A. Bondoc brought this lawsuit against James Blake, Jr. alleging a long list of
civil and criminal infractions. Ms. Bondoc and Mr. Blake share a child. According to Ms. Bondoc,
she had primary custody of the child until 2012, when a court unlawfully transferred custody to
Mr. Blake. In this action, Ms. Bondoc asks the Court to, among other things, declare a “$34,046
child support judgment void and unenforceable”; declare “prior custody orders . . . voidable”;
“[s]tay related proceedings in state courts in Charles County, Prince George’s County, and Loudon
County[, Maryland]”; and order a change of child “custody or, at minimum, reestablish federal
visitation protections pending final relief.” Am. Compl. at 10, ECF No. 7. Mr. Blake moves to
dismiss this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Mot., ECF
No. 12. Both Parties are proceeding pro se, and Mr. Blake’s motion is fully briefed and ripe for
review. Opp’n, ECF No. 15; Reply, ECF No. 16. The Court recognizes that Ms. Bondoc is
frustrated with the outcome of certain child-custody and child-support proceedings. But because
this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over Ms. Bondoc’s claims, the Court grants Mr. Blake’s
motion and dismisses this case under Rule 12(b)(1). LEGAL STANDARD
“When a defendant brings a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must demonstrate
that the court indeed has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear his claims.” Hill v. U.S. Dep’t of the
Interior, 699 F. Supp. 3d 1, 12 (D.D.C. 2023) (first citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,
561 (1992); and then citing U.S. Ecology, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 231 F.3d 20, 24 (D.C.
Cir. 2000)). In reviewing a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), courts “construe the complaint liberally, granting [the] plaintiff the benefit of
all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.” Thomas v. Principi, 394 F.3d 970, 972
(D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting Barr v. Clinton, 370 F.3d 1196, 1199 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). “[T]he pleadings
of pro se parties are to be ‘liberally construed’ and ‘held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]’” Tyson v. Brennan, 277 F. Supp. 3d 28, 35 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)).
DISCUSSION
Mr. Blake moves to dismiss this action, arguing that “[n]o jurisdictional basis exists for
any federal claim touching family law” in this action. Mot. 1. Ms. Bondoc responds that federal
jurisdiction exists because her claims are brought under various federal statutes. Opp’n 1–2 (citing,
among others, civil rights statutes, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, the civil Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962, 1964, and the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C.
§ 1901 et seq.). The Court agrees with Mr. Blake that it has no jurisdiction over Ms. Bondoc’s
claims. Accordingly, it grants Mr. Blake’s motion and dismisses this case.1
1 Because the Court grants Mr. Blake’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), it need not reach his Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Court does not consider any new arguments raised in Mr. Blake’s Reply. Accordingly, Ms. Bondoc’s Motion to Strike, ECF No. 19, is denied as moot.
2 “[F]undamentally, federal courts have no business interfering with child-custody
proceedings in state court.” Hickson v. Newell, No. 24-cv-3576, 2025 WL 315144, at *1 (D.D.C.
Jan. 28, 2025). Two abstention doctrines deprive the Court of jurisdiction to consider
Ms. Bondoc’s claims.
A. Younger Abstention
The Younger abstention doctrine prevents courts from exercising jurisdiction in certain
cases related to ongoing state court proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44–45 (1971).
Under Younger, the Court declines to hear Ms. Bondoc’s claims seeking to stay or interfere with
ongoing Maryland family-court proceedings. See Am. Compl. at 10.
The Court applies a two-step analysis to determine whether the Younger doctrine applies.
At the first step, it examines whether the state court litigation falls within one of three categories
of cases: (1) ongoing state criminal prosecutions; (2) certain civil enforcement proceedings; and
(3) pending “civil proceedings involving certain orders that are uniquely in furtherance of the state
courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions.” Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69,
78 (2013) (quoting New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of the City of New Orleans, 491 U.S.
350, 368 (1989)). “[C]hild-welfare litigation” is among the “state processes” covered by the
doctrine. Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 435 (1979). So “[c]hild custody proceedings fall into the
third category and are a ‘strong candidate for Younger abstention.’” Nellom v. Ambrose,
No. 22-cv-1283, 2022 WL 4120265, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2022) (quoting Smith v. Harrison,
No. 21-cv-5120, 2022 WL 445757, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2022)).
At the second step, courts consider three factors: (1) whether there is an ongoing state
judicial proceeding; (2) whether the proceeding implicates important state interests; and
(3) whether there is an adequate opportunity to raise federal issues in the state proceeding. See
3 Hoai v. Sun Refin. & Mktg. Co., 866 F.2d 1515, 1518 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (citing Middlesex Cnty.
Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)). Here, all three factors counsel
in favor of abstention.
First, Mr. Blake identifies ongoing divorce and child custody proceedings in Charles
County, Maryland. Reply 2; see Lee vs. Blake, No. C-08-FM-22-001200 (Md. Cir. Ct. Charles
Cnty. filed Aug. 29, 2022). And Ms.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SHANNON A. BONDOC,
Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 25 - 1416 (SLS) v. Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan
JAMES BLAKE, JR.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Shannon A. Bondoc brought this lawsuit against James Blake, Jr. alleging a long list of
civil and criminal infractions. Ms. Bondoc and Mr. Blake share a child. According to Ms. Bondoc,
she had primary custody of the child until 2012, when a court unlawfully transferred custody to
Mr. Blake. In this action, Ms. Bondoc asks the Court to, among other things, declare a “$34,046
child support judgment void and unenforceable”; declare “prior custody orders . . . voidable”;
“[s]tay related proceedings in state courts in Charles County, Prince George’s County, and Loudon
County[, Maryland]”; and order a change of child “custody or, at minimum, reestablish federal
visitation protections pending final relief.” Am. Compl. at 10, ECF No. 7. Mr. Blake moves to
dismiss this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Mot., ECF
No. 12. Both Parties are proceeding pro se, and Mr. Blake’s motion is fully briefed and ripe for
review. Opp’n, ECF No. 15; Reply, ECF No. 16. The Court recognizes that Ms. Bondoc is
frustrated with the outcome of certain child-custody and child-support proceedings. But because
this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over Ms. Bondoc’s claims, the Court grants Mr. Blake’s
motion and dismisses this case under Rule 12(b)(1). LEGAL STANDARD
“When a defendant brings a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must demonstrate
that the court indeed has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear his claims.” Hill v. U.S. Dep’t of the
Interior, 699 F. Supp. 3d 1, 12 (D.D.C. 2023) (first citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,
561 (1992); and then citing U.S. Ecology, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 231 F.3d 20, 24 (D.C.
Cir. 2000)). In reviewing a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), courts “construe the complaint liberally, granting [the] plaintiff the benefit of
all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.” Thomas v. Principi, 394 F.3d 970, 972
(D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting Barr v. Clinton, 370 F.3d 1196, 1199 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). “[T]he pleadings
of pro se parties are to be ‘liberally construed’ and ‘held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]’” Tyson v. Brennan, 277 F. Supp. 3d 28, 35 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)).
DISCUSSION
Mr. Blake moves to dismiss this action, arguing that “[n]o jurisdictional basis exists for
any federal claim touching family law” in this action. Mot. 1. Ms. Bondoc responds that federal
jurisdiction exists because her claims are brought under various federal statutes. Opp’n 1–2 (citing,
among others, civil rights statutes, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, the civil Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962, 1964, and the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C.
§ 1901 et seq.). The Court agrees with Mr. Blake that it has no jurisdiction over Ms. Bondoc’s
claims. Accordingly, it grants Mr. Blake’s motion and dismisses this case.1
1 Because the Court grants Mr. Blake’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), it need not reach his Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Court does not consider any new arguments raised in Mr. Blake’s Reply. Accordingly, Ms. Bondoc’s Motion to Strike, ECF No. 19, is denied as moot.
2 “[F]undamentally, federal courts have no business interfering with child-custody
proceedings in state court.” Hickson v. Newell, No. 24-cv-3576, 2025 WL 315144, at *1 (D.D.C.
Jan. 28, 2025). Two abstention doctrines deprive the Court of jurisdiction to consider
Ms. Bondoc’s claims.
A. Younger Abstention
The Younger abstention doctrine prevents courts from exercising jurisdiction in certain
cases related to ongoing state court proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44–45 (1971).
Under Younger, the Court declines to hear Ms. Bondoc’s claims seeking to stay or interfere with
ongoing Maryland family-court proceedings. See Am. Compl. at 10.
The Court applies a two-step analysis to determine whether the Younger doctrine applies.
At the first step, it examines whether the state court litigation falls within one of three categories
of cases: (1) ongoing state criminal prosecutions; (2) certain civil enforcement proceedings; and
(3) pending “civil proceedings involving certain orders that are uniquely in furtherance of the state
courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions.” Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69,
78 (2013) (quoting New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of the City of New Orleans, 491 U.S.
350, 368 (1989)). “[C]hild-welfare litigation” is among the “state processes” covered by the
doctrine. Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 435 (1979). So “[c]hild custody proceedings fall into the
third category and are a ‘strong candidate for Younger abstention.’” Nellom v. Ambrose,
No. 22-cv-1283, 2022 WL 4120265, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2022) (quoting Smith v. Harrison,
No. 21-cv-5120, 2022 WL 445757, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2022)).
At the second step, courts consider three factors: (1) whether there is an ongoing state
judicial proceeding; (2) whether the proceeding implicates important state interests; and
(3) whether there is an adequate opportunity to raise federal issues in the state proceeding. See
3 Hoai v. Sun Refin. & Mktg. Co., 866 F.2d 1515, 1518 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (citing Middlesex Cnty.
Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)). Here, all three factors counsel
in favor of abstention.
First, Mr. Blake identifies ongoing divorce and child custody proceedings in Charles
County, Maryland. Reply 2; see Lee vs. Blake, No. C-08-FM-22-001200 (Md. Cir. Ct. Charles
Cnty. filed Aug. 29, 2022). And Ms. Bondoc expressly asks the Court to “[s]tay related
proceedings in state courts” in that county. Am. Compl. at 10.
Second, family law and child custody proceedings implicate important state interests.
“Family relations are a traditional area of state concern.” Moore, 442 U.S. at 435. And “custody
arrangements implicate important state interests” for purposes of Younger. Nellom, 2022 WL
4120265, at *2. For this reason, the Supreme Court has applied Younger to proceedings involving
the custody of children. Moore, 442 U.S. at 435. Courts in this District have done the same. See,
e.g., Proctor v. Title 4-D, 318 F. Supp. 3d 337, 346 (D.D.C. 2018); Whitehead v. D.C. Child
Support Servs. Div., 892 F. Supp. 2d 315, 318 (D.D.C. 2012); Delaney v. District of Columbia,
659 F. Supp. 2d 185, 194 (D.D.C. 2009).
Third, Ms. Bondoc does not allege that she lacks “an adequate opportunity to raise” any
federal issues in the state proceedings. Proctor, 318 F. Supp. 3d at 346. “[A] federal court . . .
assume[s] that state procedures will afford an adequate remedy, in the absence of unambiguous
authority to the contrary.” Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987). And “state courts
are more eminently suited to work on divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees than are federal
courts, which lack the close association with state and local government organizations dedicated
to handling issues that arise out of conflicts over those subjects.” Proctor, 318 F. Supp. 3d at 346
(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 704 (1992)).
4 All three factors point in the same direction. Younger prevents this Court from considering
Ms. Bondoc’s requests to stay or otherwise interfere with the ongoing state proceedings in
Maryland. See Delaney, 659 F. Supp. 2d at 194 (noting this approach is consistent with
jurisprudence in the Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits and collecting cases).
B. Rooker–Feldman Doctrine
Another doctrine leads to the same result as to Ms. Bondoc’s claims seeking review of
judgments already entered by Maryland courts. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). The Rooker–
Feldman doctrine applies to cases “complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments
rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and
rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284
(2005). In those circumstances, courts must dismiss because they “lack jurisdiction to review
judicial decisions by state . . . courts.” Richardson v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 83
F.3d 1513, 1514 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
Here, Ms. Bondoc asks the Court to relieve her from state child support, child custody, and
forfeiture orders entered by state courts in Maryland. Am. Compl. at 10. The Rooker–Feldman
doctrine prevents this Court from reviewing those judgments. See Beasley v. Becker,
No. 24-cv-2832, 2024 WL 5008723, at *1 (D.D.C. Nov. 27, 2024) (applying the doctrine to a case
challenging a child custody order); Glass v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-cv-428,
2017 WL 5479442, at *5 (D.D.C. Nov. 14, 2017) (dismissing challenge to child support orders
under Rooker–Feldman doctrine).2
2 The domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction generally deprives federal courts of jurisdiction over “cases involving the issuance of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree,” Ankenbrandt, 504 U.S. at 704, or cases seeking to modify existing child support obligations or
5 CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 12. A
separate order will issue.
SPARKLE L. SOOKNANAN United States District Judge
Date: January 30, 2026
custody determinations, see Bennett v. Bennett, 682 F.2d 1039, 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to “resolve parental conflicts over the custody of . . . children”). Courts in this District have applied the exception in cases like this one. See Hickson, 2025 WL 315144, at *1; Beasley, 2024 WL 5008723, at *1. Because the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction under Younger and Rooker–Feldman, it need not address whether the domestic relations exception also deprives it of jurisdiction.