17-1658 

Bukowski v. Spinner

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY 

ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF 

APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER 

IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN 

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY 

ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 

held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 19th day of January, two thousand eighteen. 

PRESENT: 

DENNIS JACOBS,

PETER W. HALL, 

CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,

Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________ 

JOYELLE BUKOWSKI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 17-1658 

JEFFREY ARLEN SPINNER, Family Judge, 

Court of State of New York, MARY BETH 

DANIELS, Law Guardian, JOANNE 

MERRIHUE, PHILIP J. CASTROVINCI, 

Attorney for Adam Saylor, DENNIS M. 

BROWN, Attorney, Suffolk County, LORI 

TOWNS, KATHLEEN TURNER, ADAM 

SAYLOR, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_____________________________________ 

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Joyelle Bukowski, pro se, Coram, 

NY. 
2

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: 

JEFFEREY A. SPINNER DAVID LAWRENCE III (Barbara D. 

Underwood, Solicitor General, and 

Andrew W. Amend, Senior Assistant 

Solicitor General, on the brief), for

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney 

General of the State of New York, 

New York, NY. 

MARY BETH DANIELS MATTHEW K. FLANAGAN, Catalano 

Gallardo & Petropoulous, LLP, 

Jericho, NY. 

JOANNE MERRIHUE, DENNIS M. Brian C. Mitchell, Assistant 

BROWN, LORI TOWNS, KATHLEEN County Attorney, for Dennis

TURNER M. Brown, Suffolk County 

 Attorney, Hauppauge, NY. 

 

PHILLIP J. CASTROVINCI Phillip J. Castrovinci, Esq., pro se, 

 Smithtown, NY. 

ADAM SAYLOR Adam Saylor, pro se, Lake Grove, 

NY. 

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New 

York (Seybert, J.). 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Joyelle Bukowski, pro se, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a state family 

court judge, her child’s law guardian, an attorney for New York Child Protective Services 

(“CPS”), three CPS workers, the father of her child, and the father’s attorney, arguing that she 

suffered various constitutional injuries arising from temporary state-court orders related to her 

custody and visitation rights. The district court sua sponte dismissed Bukowski’s complaint 

(without leave to amend) under both the domestic-relations exception to federal subject-matter 

jurisdiction and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Bukowski appeals. 

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and 

the issues presented for review. 

1. We review the district court’s dismissal of Bukowski’s complaint--under both the 

domestic relations exception and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine--de novo. See Liranzo v. United 

States, 690 F.3d 78, 84 (2d Cir. 2012). We may affirm the dismissal on either ground relied on by 

the district court, but we are also “free to affirm on any ground that finds support in the record.” 

Brown Media Corp. v. K&L Gates, LLP, 854 F.3d 150, 160 n.6 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Headley v. 

Tilghman, 53 F.3d 472, 476 (2d Cir. 1995)). 
3

 We affirm the dismissal of Bukowski’s complaint on the ground that federal-court 

abstention is required under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), insofar as Bukowski seeks 

declaratory or injunctive relief that would interfere with a “[s]tate court’s ability to perform its 

judicial function in . . . [an ongoing] custody proceeding[].” Falco v. Justices of the Matrimonial 

Parts of Supreme Court of Suffolk Cty., 805 F.3d 425, 428 (2d Cir. 2015), cert. denied sub nom.

Falco v. Justices of the Matrimonial Parts of the Supreme Court of Suffolk Cty., 136 S. Ct. 2469 

(2016). 

 To the extent that Bukowski also seeks monetary damages, we decline to stay her federal 

suit pending resolution of the state proceeding because Bukowski’s claims for damages plainly 

fail. See Kirschner v. Klemons, 225 F.3d 227, 238 (2d Cir. 2000). Bukowski failed to raise any 

allegations against defendants Kathleen Turner and Dennis Brown. See Patterson v. Cnty. of 

Oneida, 375 F.3d 206, 229 (2d Cir. 2004). Absolute immunity defeats the claims against Jeffrey 

Tavel (CPS’s prosecutor), Jeffrey Spinner (the family court judge), Lori Towns (a CPS worker 

who testified against Bukowski), and Joanne Merrihue (another CPS worker who testified). See

Cornejo v. Bell, 592 F.3d 121, 127—28 (2d Cir. 2010) (prosecutors); Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204, 

209 (2d Cir. 2009) (judges); Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 345 (1983) (witnesses). To the 

extent that Bukowski attempts to state against any of those defendants a claim that is not barred by 

absolute immunity, see Dory v. Ryan, 25 F.3d 81, 83 (2d Cir. 1994), she fails, see Zemesky v. City 

of New York, 821 F.2d 148, 151 (2d Cir. 1987). Finally, the claims against Adam Saylor (the 

father of Bukowski’s child), Philip Castrovinci (Saylor’s lawyer), and Mary Beth Daniels (the 

child’s law guardian)--which Bukowski brought under § 1983--must be dismissed because none of 

those defendants is a state actor, see Milan v. Wertheimer, 808 F.3d 961, 964 (2d Cir. 2015), and 

Bukowski’s oblique reference to those private actors conspiring with CPS to deprive her of her 

child is fatally conclusory or otherwise unsupported, see Ciambriello v. Cnty. of Nassau, 292 F.3d 

307, 324 (2d Cir. 2002). Bukowski’s complaint was properly dismissed. 

2. We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny Bukowski leave to amend on the 

ground that amendment would be futile. See Smith v. Hogan, 794 F.3d 249, 253 (2d Cir. 2015). 

Notwithstanding the solicitude accorded to pro se plaintiffs, the court’s decision was proper 

because the complaint, read liberally, “suggests that [Bukowski lacks] a claim” rather than merely 

“that she has inadequately or inartfully pleaded.” Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 

2000). 

We have considered all of Bukowski’s remaining arguments and find them to be without 

merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court