UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1045

RONALD REALE; DEBRA REALE; MINOR CHILD T.R.B., through next 

friends Ronald and Debra Reale; MINOR CHILD S.R.R., through 

next friends Ronald and Debra Reale; MINOR CHILD M.R.R., 

through next friends Ronald and Debra Reale; MINOR CHILD 

H.M.R., through next friends Ronald and Debra Reale; MINOR 

CHILD S.M.R., through next friends Ronald and Debra Reale; 

MINOR CHILD J.R.R., through next friends Ronald and Debra 

Reale; MINOR CHILD B.R.R., through next friends Ronald and 

Debra Reale,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

WAKE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES; RAMON ROJANO; WARREN LUDWIG; 

LISA CAULEY; VIRGINIA KING; JOHN GUSTAVSON; NIKKI LYONS; 

RICHARD HAYNER; NANCY BRAKE; JULIE RIGGINS; SAUNDRA JUDD; 

JILL GREEN; GINGER GIALANELLA; JAMIE SESSOMS; LAURIE SCHOLL; 

JUDGE ERIC CHASE; JUDGE LORI CHRISTIAN; JUDGE MONICA 

BOUSMAN; JUDGE JANE GRAY; STEVE COMBS; RICK CROUTHARMEL; 

ALBERT SINGER; WAKE COUNTY GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM; 

BACCUHUS CARVER; SUSAN VICK; MELLONEE KENNEDY; LAS VEGAS 

METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHILD HAVEN; WRENN HOUSE; WAKE 

HOUSE; KELLI-ANN REALE; TIMOTHY GRIEGO; NATASHA WILDE-BRANT; 

ROBIN DOMINGUEZ; RHONDA ANDERBERG; GERARD ANDERBERG; 

CHRISTOPHER ANDERBERG; MAIN STREET CLINICAL ASSOCIATES; DR. 

KARIN YOCH; CAROLINA PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH SERVICES; JOYCE 

WILLIAMS; COMMISSIONER JOHN VINEYARD; COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; BRUCE RUDBERG; COURTNEY 

BARZANDEH,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:11-cv-00682-D)
2

Submitted: April 20, 2012 Decided: May 4, 2012

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Reale and Debra Reale, Appellants Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Ronald and Debra Reale, acting on behalf of themselves 

and their minor children, appeal the district court’s dismissal 

of their pro se civil complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006). 

We vacate and remand to the district court.

The district court premised its dismissal on lack of 

jurisdiction. It concluded that no federal question was at 

issue, diversity of citizenship was not present, and “the 

domestic-relations exception to federal jurisdiction applies.” 

We review legal determinations, including the breadth of a 

district court’s jurisdiction, de novo. Simmons v. United 

Mortg. & Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 762 (4th Cir. 2011).

While the district court correctly found that 

diversity jurisdiction was lacking, we cannot agree that no 

federal question was presented. The Reales’ complaint 

specifically invoked § 1983 as a basis for jurisdiction, 

claiming that state actors had deprived them of their children 

without due process.1

 While we have no basis to assess the 

 1 It appears that some of the Defendants named in the 

complaint may not be state actors. Thus, the district court 

will have to determine whether the Reales’ complaint fails to 

state a viable claim under § 1983 against some or all of the 

Defendants. That uncertainty, however, does not bear upon the 

jurisdiction of the district court.
4

viability of the complaint, its constitutional character is 

undeniable.

Nor does the domestic relations exception undermine 

federal question jurisdiction where it otherwise exists. As 

construed by the Supreme Court, “the domestic relations 

exception encompasses only cases involving the issuance of a 

divorce, alimony, or child custody decree.” Ankenbrandt v. 

Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 704 (1992). Federal courts “lack power 

to issue these types of decrees because of the special 

proficiency developed by state tribunals over the past century 

and a half in handling issues that arise in the granting of such 

decrees.” Id. The exception is statutory, not constitutional, 

in nature, and derives from construction of the diversity 

jurisdiction statute. Id. at 700-01. Thus, the domestic 

relations exception “is applied only as a judicially implied 

limitation on the diversity jurisdiction; it has no generally 

recognized application as a limitation on federal question 

jurisdiction.” United States v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 476, 481 (4th 

Cir. 1997); see also Atwood v. Fort Peck Tribal Court 

Assiniboine, 513 F.3d 943, 947 (9th Cir. 2008).

Because the Reales’ complaint is based on federal 

question jurisdiction, not diversity of citizenship, the 

domestic relations exception does not limit the district court’s 
5

jurisdiction over it. We therefore vacate the district court’s 

dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The district court also found that the Reales could 

not bring a pro se lawsuit on behalf of their minor children. 

On appeal, the Reales concede they cannot press their children’s 

claims pro se. See Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub. Sch., 418 F.3d 

395, 401 (4th Cir. 2005). However, they request remand so that 

they can retain counsel on behalf of their children or seek 

appointment of counsel by the district court. We grant their 

request for remand of their children’s claims. However, if they 

fail to retain counsel and the district court does not appoint 

counsel, their children’s claims should be dismissed without 

prejudice.2

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order of 

dismissal and remand. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 2 By our order of remand, we make no comment on the 

propriety of appointment of counsel in this case.