2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-20-2008 

# D . T .B . v . D angle r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1176

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " D . T .B . v . D an gle r " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1195. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1195NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED S TATES CO UR T OF APPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 07- 1176

_____________ D . T . B . , a mi norchi l d, byhi s nextfr i end D A N IE L J. O ' C A L L A G H A N ; D A N I E L J . O ' C A L L A G H A N , on hi s ow n behal f, A p p e llan ts

v. JO H N B . D A N G L E R , in p a st o r p re se n t o f f icia l ca p a c itya s J u stic e o f th e S u p e rio r C o u rt o f th e S tate o f

N e w Je rse y , C h a n c e ryD iv isio n , F a m ilyP a rt; P E T E R C . H A R V E Y , i n p astor pres ent offi ci al capac i tyas A tto rn e yG e n e ra l o f

th e S tate o f

N e w Je rse y ; A D A M S IF R E , E S Q .; E IN H O R N , H A R R IS , A S C H E R , B A R B A R IT O , F R O S T & IR O N S O N , P .C .;

S US AN E DWARDS , P h D. A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 05- cv- 04309) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Pet erG . Sher i dan Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 25, 2008 B efor e: M cK E E , R E N D E L L and TA SH I M A *, C i r cui tJ udges

__________________ * H onor abl e A . W al l ace T as hi m a, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es C our tof A p p e a ls f

o r t h e N in th C ir c u it, s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .2 ( Fi l ed M ay20, 2008) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJudge. A s a r es ul tof hi s conce r n as t o the pr ogr es s of hi s cont i nui ng cus t odyand vi s i t at i on batt l e r egar di ng hi s s on, D . T . B . , i n N ew J er s eys t at e court , and as t o a s ui tt hat appar ent l yhas been f

i l ed aga i ns thi m i n N ew Y or k s t at e courtfor“mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on/puni t i ve damages , ” D ani el O ’ C al l aghan, on behal f of hi m s el f and hi s s on D . T . B . , has s ued the fol l ow i ng per s ons and ent i t i es : ( 1) form erN ew J er s eyA t t orney G ener al Pet erC . H arvey , i n hi s offi ci al capa ci ty ; ( 2) the H on. J ohn B . D angl erof the N ew J er s eySuper i orC our t , i n hi s offi ci al capa ci ty ; ( 3) A dam S i fr e, the l aw y ers ui ng O ’C all ag h an in N ew Y o rk state c o u rt ; ( 4 ) th e law firm o f E inh o rn, H arris, A sch er, B arb arit io, Fro st & Iron so n , P . C . (“E inh o rn H arris”), w h ich h as re p rese n ted D . T . B . ’s m otheri n t he cus t odyhear i ngs ; and ( 5) D r . Susa n E dw ar ds , a ps y chol ogi s tw hom the N ew Jerse yco u rtap p o inted as a n ex p ert i n the c u stod yp roc ee d ing s. T h e D istri ct C o u rt g r a n t e d th e d e f

e n d a n t s ’ j o i n tmo t i o n t o d i s mi s s wi th p r e j u d i c e . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. T h e d if f icu lt-to- f o llo w f a c ts, a s re late d b yO ’C a llag h a n ’s c o n v o lu ted c o m p lain t, are as foll ow s:

• Ju n e 2 0 0 0 : O ’C a llag h a n su e d D .T .B .’s m o th e r in N e w Je rse yS u p e rio r C o u rt,3

befor e the H on. J ohn J . H arper , forthe r i ghtt o i ncr eas ed vi s i t at i on and c o m m u n ic a tio n w ith D .T .B .

• A ugus t2000: B as ed on a “ fake N ew Y or k ps y chol ogi s t ’ s l ett er , ” J udge H arper ruled that O ’C all ag h an ’s visit ati o n an d co m m u n icati o n ri g h ts sho u ld rem ain v ery lim ite d . (A p p . 4 6 -4 7 .)

• A u g u st 2 0 0 2 : T h e H o n . D a v id B . R a n d , als o o f th e N e w Je rse yS u p e rio r C o u rt, a d o p ted th e re c o m m e n d a tio n o f a “ D r. L ., ” w h o o p in e d th a t O ’C a llag h a n sh o u ld have much m or e t i m e w i th D . T . B . , thatD . T . B . s houl d notatt end the boar di ng sc h o o l to w h ich h is m o th e r w a s p lan n in g o n se n d in g h im , an d th a t D .T .B . sh o u ld under go i nt ens i ve couns el i ng. T he N ew J er s eyA ppel l at e D i vi s i on then s t ay ed the pr ocee di ngs befor e J udge R and on an e m er gencyappl i cat i on byD . T . B . ’ s m other and Ei nhorn H arr i s , and or der ed thatD . T . B . s houl d go t o the boar di ng s chool and thathi s couns el i ng s es s i ons s houl d end.

• O ctob er 2 0 0 2 : T h e N ew Jerse yA p p ell ate D ivisi o n af firm ed Ju d g e H arp er’s A u g u s t 2 0 0 0 ru lin g re g a rd in g lim ite d v is ita tio n .

• J anuary2003: J udge R and hel d a conf er ence atw hi ch he “ encour aged a nd author i zed Ei nhorn H arr i s t o part i ci pat e i n a ‘ s anct i ons ’ and def amat i on per se pr ocee di ng” aga i ns tO ’ C al l aghan, m ade de famat orys t at ement s , and or der ed a

“ G ulages que m e n ta l h e a lth e x a m in a tio n ” o f O ’C a lla g h a n . (A p p . 4 7 .)4

• J ul y2003: T he N ew J er s eyA ppel l at e D i vi s i on r emanded the cus t odypr ocee di ngs t o the Super i orC our tfora pl enaryhear i ng r egar di ng O ’ C al l aghan’ s vi s i t at i on r i ght s and the boar di ng s chool i s s ue. J udge R and then hel d anotherconfe r ence , at w hi ch he c oncede d t hathe had no j ur i s di ct i on t o hol d the J anuary2003 confe r ence . H ow ever , he di d notconductthe pl enaryhear i ng r equi r ed bythe A ppel l at e D i vi s i on and i ns t ead i ns t i tut ed the s ame condi t i ons as he di d atthe J anuary2003 confe r ence , i ncl udi ng the “ G ulages que m e d ic a l e x a m .” (A p p . 4 9 .)

• A ugus t - Sept ember2003: O ’ C al l aghan pr es ent ed the Super i orC our tw i th the res ult s of t he requ i red m edical exam . Judg e D ang l er, w ho had t aken ov er the case fr om J udge R and, then i m pl ement ed J udge R and’ s condi t i ons , deni ed O ’C a lla g h a n ’s re q u e s t f o r a h e a ri n g a n d re f

u s e d to re s ta rt D .T .B .’s c o u n s e lin g .

• O c to b e r 2 0 0 3 : A t Ju d g e D a n g ler ’s r e q u e st a n d w ith th e in sis ten c e a n d sp o n so rsh ip of Si fr e, D r . E dw ar ds i nt ervened bys ubm i t t i ng a r eportt o the Super i orC our tt hat in d ic a te d , in tera lia , th a t D .T .B . s h o u ld c o n tin u e to a tte n d th e b o a rd in g s c h o o l. T h e re p o rt w a s s e a le d 1 0 d a y s la te r.

• N ovember2003: E dw ar ds s entthe r eportt o the N ew Y or k s t at e courthear i ng t he “m al i ci ou s prosecut i on /pu nit i ve d am ages” suitbroug ht byS i fre agai nst O ’C a lla g h a n . (A p p . 5 0 .)

• A pr i l 2004: J udge D angl errul ed thatD . T . B . coul d go on a s chool tr i p t o L atvi a, d e sp ite O ’C a llag h a n ’s o p p o sitio n b a se d o n h is f e a r th a t terr o rists in L a tv ia w o u ldT he all eged con st i tuti on al viol at i on s appea r t o b e t he d enial of d ue p rocess , 1 dis cri m i nati on againstchil dren of un m arr i ed p arent s, and dis cri m i nati on against un m arr i ed fa thers. 5 ta rg e t th e A m e ri c a n s c h o o lc h ild re n .

• J ul y2004: J udge D angl eri nt ervi ew ed D . T . B . pr i vat el y , aw ar ded att orney ’ s fee s a g a in s t O ’C a lla g h a n , a n d im p o s e d f u rt h e r v is ita tio n re s tr ic tio n s .

• N ovember2004: T he N ew J er s eyA ppel l at e D i vi s i on deni ed mot i ons fi l ed by O ’C a lla g h a n f

o r i n te rl o c u to ry a p p e a l o f J u d g e D a n g le r’ s v a ri o u s o rd e rs . I n A ugus t2005, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed s u a s p o n te , butw i thoutpr ej udi ce, a 3 6 -p a g e c o m p lain t f

iled b yO ’C a llag h a n , fin d in g th a t itv io late d F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 8 (a ) b e c a u se th e c o m p lain t w a s “ c o n f u sin g , u n n e c e ss a rilyv e rb o se , an d th e re is n o co g n izab le claim that ca n b e g lean ed fro m the p lead ing s. ” (A p p . 2 1 . ) In S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 5 , O ’C a llag h a n f iled th e c o m p lain t in th is c a se , w h ich is s o m e w h a t s h o rt e r b u t s till v e ry si m ila r t o th e c o m p la in t d is m is s e d th e p re v io u s m o n th . H i s new compl ai nts oughtthe fol l ow i ng r el i ef: ( 1) decl ar at oryj udgm entagai ns tJ udge D angl er , decl ar i ng thatJ udge D angl er ’ s conductof the Super i orC our tpr ocee di ngs and h is pro m o ti o n o f th e su b m issi o n s o f S ifre, E d w ard s, an d E inh o rn H arris t o the N ew Y o rk courtvi ol at ed O ’ C al l aghan’ s and D . T . B . ’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s ; ( 2) decl ar at oryj udgm ent 1 agai ns tSi fr e, E dw ar ds , and Ei nhorn H arr i s , decl ar i ng thatal l thr ee c ons pi r ed t o deny O ’C al l agh an an d D . T . B . theircon st i tuti on al ri gh t s; (3) declar at oryj ud gm ent agai nst6

E dw ar ds , decl ar i ng thats he i nvaded O ’ C al l aghan’ s pr i vacy ; ( 4) compensa t orydamages agai ns tE dw ar ds fordefa m at i on; and ( 5) i nj unct i ve r el i ef a gai ns tSi fr e, E dw ar ds , and E i nhorn H arr i s , r equi r i ng them t o cea s e any“w r ongful , dece i t ful and i nj ur i ous s ubm i s s i ons ” t o “anyper s on, ent i ty , governm entagenc y , court , orotherw i s e” a nd t o i s s ue fo rm al retr ac ti o n s to a n yw h o rec eive d E d w ard s’ su b m issi o n s. (A p p . 6 1 -62 ). T he D i stri ctC ou rtdis m i ssed al l of these cl ai m s on a n um ber of alt ernat e groun ds, i ncl udi ng the fol l ow i ng: ( 1) A s t o H arvey , the C our tfound thatthe compl ai ntnece s s ar i l yfai l ed t o s t at e a c laim b e c a u se h e w a s n o t m e n tio n e d a n yw h e re in th e c o m p lain t. ( 2) T he damages cl ai m agai ns tE dw ar ds fordefa m at i on w as hel d t o be barr ed by both s t at es ’ appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons beca us e i tw as fi l ed more than one y earaft er h e r r e p o rt w a s s u b m itte d to e ith e r t h e N e w J e rs e yo r N e w Y o rk c o u rt . See N . J . St at . A nn. § 2 A :1 4 -3 ; N .Y . C .P .L .R . § 2 1 5 . ( 3) R egar di ng al l thr ee de cl ar at oryj udgm entcl ai m s , the C our tm ade the di s cr et i onarydeci s i on nott o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on underthe D ecl ar at oryJ udgm entA ct b e c a u s e “ a n y ru l i n g r e n d e r e d b y t h e D i s tr i c tC o u r tw o u l d n o ts e t t l e th e c o n tr o v e r s y, w oul d nots erve a us eful purpos e i n cl ar i fy i ng l egal r el at i ons , w oul d be us ed i n a r ace for re s ju d ica ta , w oul d s tr i p t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on and Supr eme C our tof N ew J er s eyof th e ir a u th o rityto re v iew a n d w o u ld e n c ro a c h u p o n th e sta te’ s ju risd ictio n ,” a n d “ a p p e llate r evi ew atthe s t at e l evel aff or d t he pl ai nt i ff a n al t ernat i ve and mor e ef fec t i ve r emedy . ”7

(A p p . 7 ). See 28 U . S. C . § 2201( a) ( “I n a ca s e of a ctual contr over s yw i thi n i t s j ur i s di ct i on, . . . a n yc o u rt o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s . . . m ay decl ar e the r i ght s and otherl egal r el at i ons of anyi nt er es t ed partys eeki ng s uch dec l ar at i on, w hetherornotfur therr el i ef i s orcoul d be s o u g h t.” (e m p h a s is a d d e d )) . ( 4) Fi nal l y , r egar di ng the cl ai m fori nj unct i ve r el i ef a gai ns tSi fr e, E dw ar ds , and E inh o rn H arris, the C o u rtfo u n d that ab sten ti o n w as a p p rop ri ate u n d er Y o u n g e r v . H

a rr is , 401 U . S. 37 ( 1971) , beca us e ther e i s an ongoi ng pr ocee di ng i n N ew Y or k s t at e court , t he s t at e of N ew Y ork “has an i m por t anti nt er es ti n contr ol l i ng and r evi ew i ng fi l i ngs s ubm i t t ed t o i t s court s , ” and the s t at e courther e “i s bett erequi pped t o det erm i ne w hether a n ys u c h f

ilin g is ‘w ro n g f

u l, d e c e itf

u l a n d in ju ri o u s .’” (A p p . 1 0 -1 1 ). See Yang v. Tsui , 416 F. 3d 199, 202 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “Thre e r equi r ement s m us tbe metbefor e Y ounger abs t ent i on i s appr opr i at e: ( 1) ther e mustbe an ongoi ng s t at e j udi ci al pr ocee di ng t o w hi ch the fe der al pl ai nt i ff i s a partyand w i th w hi ch the fe der al pr ocee di ng w i l l i nt er fer e, ( 2) t he s t at e pr ocee di ngs m us ti m pl i cat e i m por t ants t at e i nt er es t s , and ( 3) the s t at e pr ocee di ngs m u st aff o rd a n ad eq u ate o p p o rtu n ityto raise the claim s. ”) W e fi nd no err ori n t he r eas oni ng of the D i s tr i ctC our ti n i t s thor ough opi ni on, as w e h a v e d e ta ile d it a b o v e . A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill a f f ir m .