Phillips v. Phillips

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 14, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00425
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 TODD MATTHEW PHILLIPS, Case No.: 2:19-cv-00425-APG-BNW

4 Plaintiff Order (1) Granting Motion to Dismiss and (2) Denying Motion to Amend 5 v. [ECF Nos. 11, 23] 6 AMBER PHILLIPS; HON. LINDA MARQUIS, in Her Honor’s Official Capacity 7 as Judicial Officer; HON. JENNIFER HENRY, in Her Honor’s Official Capacity as 8 Judicial Officer; HON. TIMOTHY ANDREWS, in His Honor’s Official Capacity 9 as Judicial Officer; DOES 1 – 10,

10 Defendants

11 Plaintiff Todd Phillips (Todd) is litigating divorce and child custody issues against his 12 wife Amber Phillips (Amber) in Nevada state court. After the state court issued a temporary 13 protective order and other orders, Todd filed this lawsuit against Amber and against state court 14 Judge Linda Marquis and state court Hearing Masters Jennifer Henry and Timothy Andrews 15 (collectively the “state defendants”). He contends his “right to parent” is being violated in the 16 state court proceedings. ECF No. 1 at 6. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under the 17 Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 18 The state defendants move to dismiss the claims against them because the Younger 19 abstention doctrine precludes federal courts from interfering with on-going state court 20 proceedings. This is especially true when, as here, the plaintiff’s federal claims arise from 21 domestic relations proceedings, which are traditionally left to the state courts. I agree, so I will 22 grant the motion to dismiss this case. 23 Under Younger abstention, federal courts may not grant declaratory or injunctive relief that would interfere with state criminal or civil proceedings . . . . Absent 1 extraordinary circumstances, Younger abstention is required if the state proceedings are (1) ongoing, (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) 2 provide the plaintiff an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims.

3 San Remo Hotel v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 145 F.3d 1095, 1103 (9th Cir. 1998). Family 4 law matters—especially where interlocutory orders exist—are “precisely the type of case suited 5 to Younger abstention.” H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613-14 (9th Cir. 2000). 6 Dismissal is required when Younger abstention applies. San Remo, 145 F.3d at 1103. 7 Todd is actively litigating his divorce and custody issues in state court. Nevada has a 8 strong interest in how domestic relations issues are resolved. See H.C. ex rel. Gordon, 203 F.3d 9 at 613 (“This is a particularly appropriate admonition in the field of domestic relations, over 10 which federal courts have no general jurisdiction, . . . and in which the state courts have a special 11 expertise and experience.”) (internal citations omitted).1 Nothing precludes Todd from litigating 12 his federal claims in the state court action. Therefore, I will dismiss the claims under Younger 13 without reaching the other grounds for dismissal raised by the state defendants. 14 I also dismiss Todd’s claim against Amber because it, too, arises from the divorce case 15 and thus is barred by Younger. See ECF No. 1 at 7 (“Legal Issue Presented: Where family law 16 courts find domestic violence, may courts thereupon revoke the perpetrator’s parental rights— 17 and award sole custody to the victim? (No.)”). In addition, Todd has not filed proof that he 18 served Amber with the summons and complaint for this case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 4(m) allows dismissal of a lawsuit against a defendant who has not been served within 90 days 20 after the complaint is filed. I do not dismiss the claim against Amber based on that service 21 defect, however, as Younger abstention renders moot any proof of service. 22

1 See also Peterson v. Babbitt, 708 F.2d 465, 466 (9th Cir. 1983) (“[F]ederal courts have 23 uniformly held that they should not adjudicate cases involving domestic relations, including the custody of minors and a fortiori, the rights of visitation.”) (internal quote omitted). 1 Todd filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint to add two causes of action and a defendant. ECF No. 23. But his proposed amended complaint is likewise barred by Younger 3|| because the proposed claims are inextricably intertwined with the divorce and custody issues 4! being litigated in state court. Thus, amendment would be futile and the Younger abstention 5|| doctrine mandates that I dismiss the lawsuit. Therefore, I deny Todd’s motion to amend. 6 I GRANT the defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11). The complaint is dismissed in its entirety. 8 I DENY the plaintiff’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 23). 9 I ORDER the clerk of the court to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 10 DATED this 14th day of January, 2020. 11 J ———— ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23