Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00038/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00038-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mynesha J. Leonard
Defendant
Lewis E. Washington III
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

LEWIS E. WASHINGTON III, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO. 2:14-cv-38-MHT-WC 

 ) 

MYNESHA J. LEONARD, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. )

 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 Before the court is Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1), Amended Complaint (Doc. 3), 

and Motions for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 2 & 4). On January 30, 

2014, the District Judge entered an Order (Doc. 5) referring this matter to the undersigned 

Magistrate Judge “for consideration and disposition or recommendation on all pretrial 

matters as may be appropriate.” 

 Upon review of the pleadings and the record in this case, and for the reasons that 

follow, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED for lack of 

jurisdiction, and the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) be DENIED 

as MOOT. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Pro se Plaintiff brings this action against Mynesha J. Leonard, alleging child 

neglect and emotional abuse, breach of contract, and parental kidnaping and deprivation. 

Amend. Comp. (Doc. 3) at 3-5. Plaintiff seeks an order from this court awarding him 

custody of Plaintiff and Defendant’s minor child. The child currently resides with 

Case 2:14-cv-00038-MHT-WC Document 10 Filed 02/25/14 Page 1 of 5
2 

Defendant in Alabama, while Plaintiff resides in Georgia. Count I of the Amended 

Complaint alleges that Defendant has failed to provide the child with adequate care and 

adequate medical care and subjected the child to emotional abuse. Count II of the 

complaint alleges that Defendant has breached the terms of a private contract with 

Plaintiff regarding custody and visitation rights. Count III of the complaint essentially 

alleges kidnaping based on Defendant’s refusal to allow Plaintiff to visit with the child.

II. DISCUSSION

 Plaintiff’s Complaint, and Amended Complaint seek the court’s review and 

intervention into an on-going custody dispute in the Juvenile Court of Elmore County, 

Alabama. Indeed, the Complaint lists the court, the Judge assigned to the case, and the 

appointed guardian ad litem, and requests that this court interfere based on the 

“impartiality” of the state court judge. According to Plaintiff, the state court judge 

is very knowledgeable of [Plaintiff’s] family through his wife and former 

co-worker of the father’s uncle, and their son, a former team-mate of the 

father’s brother [.] Thus a perceptual bias of the father has been developed 

and is noticed in the denial of several motions the father filed, which 

included a Motion to Consolidate hearings with child support, Motion to 

Rehear on a separate small claims case against Ms. Leonard, and an Ex 

Parte Pendente Lite relief motion based on negligence of the mother and 

documents in support of said facts. Furthermore, [the judge] has failed to 

recuse himself with this knowledge in hand. 

Compl. (Doc. 1) at 2. Plaintiff seeks this court directly interfere in the state court matter, 

and issue a determination of custody. Id. at 7. Such interference is barred by the 

Younger abstention doctrine. The abstention doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 

401 U.S. 37 (1971), reaffirmed the “strong federal policy against federal-court 

interference with pending state judicial proceedings.” Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. 

Case 2:14-cv-00038-MHT-WC Document 10 Filed 02/25/14 Page 2 of 5
3 

Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982). “The policies underlying Younger 

are fully applicable to noncriminal judicial proceedings when important state interests are 

involved.” Id. at 432. In determining whether it must abstain from exercising 

jurisdiction under Younger, a court must 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 constitutional 

challenges in the state proceeding. Id. 

 In this case, all three factors require the court to abstain from exercising 

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. First, there is indeed an ongoing state court action in 

Elmore County. Second, child custody cases implicate important state interests, and 

“[t]hus, under Younger and [Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 435 (1979)] federal district 

courts may not interfere with ongoing child custody proceedings.” Liedel v. Juvenile 

Court of Madison Cnty., 891 F.2d 1542, 1546 (11th Cir. 1990). Third, Plaintiff has the 

opportunity to raise his challenges, and indeed has, and then can appeal any adverse 

rulings as desired to the appropriate state court. It is not however, appropriate for this 

court to interfere with the Elmore County court’s proceedings. 

 Plaintiff attempts to invoke this court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1738A, otherwise known as the Parental Kidnapping Protection Act (“PKPA”). 

However, this statute “imposes a duty on the States to enforce a child custody 

determination entered by a court of a sister State if the determination is consistent with 

the provisions of the Act.” Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174, 175-76 (1988). The 

PKPA does not create a private right of action. See id. at 182 (“The significance of 

Case 2:14-cv-00038-MHT-WC Document 10 Filed 02/25/14 Page 3 of 5
4 

Congress’ full faith and credit approach to the problem of child snatching is that the Full 

Faith and Credit Clause, in either its constitutional or statutory incarnations, does not give 

rise to an implied federal cause of action.”). Thus, this statute does not confer this court 

with jurisdiction over this matter. 

III. CONCLUSION

 Because Plaintiff seeks to have this court interfere in ongoing state court 

proceedings, the Younger abstention doctrine requires this court abstain from exercising 

jurisdiction over this case. Thus, “the court’s sole remaining act is to dismiss the case for 

lack of jurisdiction.” Guevara, 468 F.3d at 1305. 

 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the 

undersigned Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction and 

Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 2 & 4) be DENIED as 

MOOT. 

 It is further 

 ORDERED that on or before March 11, 2014, the parties may file objections to 

the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the 

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or 

general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised 

that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not 

appealable. 

 Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the 

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by 

Case 2:14-cv-00038-MHT-WC Document 10 Filed 02/25/14 Page 4 of 5
5 

the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from 

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the 

District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. 

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Sec., Inc., 667 F.2d 33 

(11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en 

banc) (adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit 

handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981). 

 Done this 25th day of February, 2014. 

 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

 

Case 2:14-cv-00038-MHT-WC Document 10 Filed 02/25/14 Page 5 of 5