Mia Graves v. Leanne Litwin

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 25-3314 ___________

MIA GRAVES, Appellant

v.

JUDGE LEANNE LITWIN; JUDGE MARK B. COHEN; MASTER WILLIAM H. KETTERLINUS; MASTER PANDOLFI, DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION; EUGENE D. WATSON; MICHELLE WATSON; DARLENA GRAVES; KATIE GALLEN; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; PHILADELPHIA FAMILY COURT ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (E.D. Pa. Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06298) District Judge: Honorable Mark A. Kearney ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 5, 2026

Before: HARDIMAN, FREEMAN, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 16, 2026) ___________

OPINION* ___________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Pro se appellant Mia Graves appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of her

complaint. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

This case stems from a custody dispute regarding Graves’s child, between Graves,

the child’s father, and the child’s maternal grandmother. See Graves v. Graves, 265 A.3d

688, 690 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). Prior to 2020, Graves had sole physical and legal custody

of the child. In 2020, after a hearing in the Family Division of the Philadelphia Court of

Common Pleas (“Family Court”), the child’s father, Eugene Watson, was awarded sole

physical and legal custody of the child. Graves appealed, and the custody order was

vacated and remanded for further proceedings. The Pennsylvania Superior Court

concluded that because only Graves and the child’s grandmother were parties to the

underlying custody matter, Watson needed to be formally added as a party on remand and

the trial court needed to consider all of the relevant factors before making its decision.

After remand, the Family Court again granted sole physical and legal custody to

Watson. The Superior Court affirmed the custody order on appeal.1 See Graves v.

Graves, 285 A.3d 964, 2022 WL 4588656 at *5 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022).

Graves then filed two federal lawsuits, bringing federal civil rights claims against

the Family Court, state court officers, a judge, Watson, and the child’s grandmother. The

first case was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the second was dismissed for lack

1 Graves also appealed to the Superior Court after the Family Court transferred the custody matter to Delaware, where Watson resided with the child, and denied Graves’s petitions to hold Watson in contempt; the Superior Court affirmed the order. See Graves v. Graves, 319 A.3d 47 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024), appeal denied, 323 A.3d 150 (Pa. 2024). 2 of prosecution. See Graves v. Cohen, CV No. 23-3853, 2023 WL 8188840, at *6 (E.D.

Pa. Nov. 27, 2023); Graves v. Watson, E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2:25-cv-00848.

In November 2025, Graves initiated a third federal lawsuit, at issue here, against

the City of Philadelphia, the Family Court, two judges, three state court officers, the

child’s grandmother, and Watson and his wife. The District Court concluded, again, that

Graves failed to state claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the District Court

declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

Graves timely appealed.2

We will affirm. The District Court appropriately concluded that Graves failed to

state a claim upon which relief could be granted on her third attempt to relitigate her state

court custody dispute in federal court.3 The Family Court is not a person for purposes of

§ 1983. See Callahan v. City of Philadelphia, 207 F.3d 668, 672 (3d Cir. 2000). Graves

has not identified a policy or custom by the City of Philadelphia that could establish

municipal liability under § 1983. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694

(1978).

2 Graves filed two motions for reconsideration in the District Court, which were denied after she initiated this appeal. She has not noticed appeals from the orders denying of reconsideration, making those decisions beyond the scope of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). 3 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). 3 The state court judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for their decisions

in Graves’s case, as she disagrees with their orders but has not alleged that they engaged

in nonjudicial acts or took actions “in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” See

Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (per curiam). The court officers — special

masters and a hearing officer who were involved with Graves’s case and thus acted on a

judicial matter in a capacity functionally equivalent to judges — were also immune from

suit in the context of this case.4 Russell v. Richardson, 905 F.3d 239, 247 (3d Cir. 2018)

(“[S]o-called ‘quasi-judicial’ immunity has been extended over time to protect a range of

judicial actors, including those who make discretionary judgments functionally

comparable to judges, . . . and those who serve as arms of the court, fulfilling a quasi-

judicial role at the court’s request.”) (cleaned up).

The remaining defendants — Watson, his wife, and the child’s grandmother — are

private individuals and not state actors for purposes of § 1983. See Benn v. Universal

Health Sys., Inc., 371 F.3d 165, 169-71 (3d Cir. 2004). Finally, because Graves’s federal

claims were all properly dismissed, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in

declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Graves’s remaining state law claims.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); In re U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 193 F.3d 151, 160 (1999).

For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.5

4 Graves’s appellate brief primarily challenges the District Court’s judicial immunity rulings, making vague, conclusory allegations of bias that do not merit relief. 5 Graves’s motion to expedite the appeal is denied. 4