Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03334/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03334-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

THERESA LOUISE PENNACCHI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

. FILED 

Urnrtd Stares Court of Appeals 

l'r,., .... th f:j ... ,..,,;. 

APR 2 i$ 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

No. 89-3334 

(D.C. No. 89-1464} 

(Dist. of Kansas} 

GEORGE EUGENE BABCOCK, SR., 

IOLA MAY BABCOCK, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a): 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Theresa Pennacchi, a prose plaintiff, filed an action for 

damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982). Upon 

receiving the defendants' motion for a more definite statement and 

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the district court 

issued an order to show cause. When Pennacchi failed to respond 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-3334 Document: 01019971966 Date Filed: 04/23/1990 Page: 1 
to that order, the district court granted the motion to dismiss. 

Pennacchi then filed a motion for reconsideration, which the 

district court denied. We affirm. 

Pennacchi filed suit against George and Iola Babcock, her 

former husband's parents. In her complaint, Pennacchi alleges a 

number of constitutional violations arising out of visitation and 

custody matters and affecting the parent-child relationship. 

Pennacchi does not name any government officials as defendants, 

nor does she allege that the Babcocks, as private parties, were 

jointly engaged with state officials in a deprivation of civil 

rights and thus acting under color of law for purposes of§ 1983. 

See Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 939-40 (1982); 

Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 (1970). She therefore 

fails to state a claim under§ 1983. 

Additionally, to the extent that Pennacchi's request for 

injunctive relief constitutes a request to review a prior custody/ 

visitation rights determination, we are barred from considering 

this claim by the domestic relation exception to diversity 

jurisdiction. See Vaughan v. Smithson, 883 F.2d 63 (10th Cir. 

1989). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-3334 Document: 01019971966 Date Filed: 04/23/1990 Page: 2