IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CAROLYN HENRY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al.,

 Defendants.

HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Civil No. 11-2469 (JBS/KMW)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SIMANDLE, District Judge:

 This matter is before the Court on the motions to dismiss

of several Defendants. Specifically the Court considers the

motions by (1) Defendant Steven J. Petersen [Docket Item 5]; (2)

Defendant John Oros (incorrectly pled as “Orsin”) [Docket Item

11]; (3) Defendants State of New Jersey, D.Y.F.S., Attorney

General Paula T. Dow, and Deputy Attorney General Sharon L.

Piccioni [Docket Item 14]; (4) and Defendants the Honorable Nancy

S. Famular, J.S.C., the Honorable Deborah Silverman-Katz, J.S.C.,

and Donald Jackson [Docket Item 16]. The Court finds as 1

follows:

1. On April 29, 2011, Plaintiff Carolyn Henry filed the

Complaint in this matter, which was written without the

assistance of a lawyer. [Docket Item 1.] Plaintiff’s Complaint

 Plaintiff submitted a response only to Defendant 1

Peterson’s motion [Docket Item 8] which does not address the

movant’s arguments and appears to complain about the processing

of her case. No other opposition to the remaining motions has

been filed by Plaintiff.

Case 1:11-cv-02469-JBS-KMW Document 17 Filed 11/30/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 273
is difficult to decipher, but she appears to allege a conspiracy

among all Defendants to deprive Plaintiff of her constitutional

rights, in particular her due-process rights as a parent,

resulting in the termination of her parental rights in a Superior

Court of New Jersey child abuse and neglect civil action. Compl.

1-4 & Ex. 1. Ms. Henry alleges that her child was taken from her

in one of several state court actions, and alleges that the

result was in error and should not have happened.

2. The moving Defendants have all moved to dismiss the

action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; specifically, all

moving Defendants except for Defendant Petersen have argued that

the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the U.S.

Supreme Court’s Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The gist of this

doctrine is that a federal district court such as this one is not

empowered under the United States Constitution to review a final

decision of a state court. If a party like Plaintiff Carolyn

Henry feels that a state court decision was incorrectly decided,

the proper response is to appeal that decision to the appropriate

state appellate court; the federal district court cannot provide

any relief in such a case. This doctrine is explained in greater

detail in the case of Parkview Associates Partnership v. City of

Lebanon, 225 F.3d 321, 324 (3d Cir. 2000).

3. The Court finds that Ms. Henry’s Complaint is precluded

under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because, based upon the Court’s

2

Case 1:11-cv-02469-JBS-KMW Document 17 Filed 11/30/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 274
best effort at understanding the Complaint, Ms. Henry’s state

court custody dispute was “actually litigated” in state court and

her claims for relief in this Court are “inextricably

intertwined” with that underlying state court adjudication. See

ITT Corp. v. Intelnet Int’l Corp., 366 F.3d 205, 210 (3d Cir.

2004). Plaintiff describes the relief she seeks as “Justice for

my son and to be given back to me” and that she seeks “to be

heard” which she believes was not done in the state court

proceedings. Compl. at 2. In order to grant this relief, the

Court would be required to determine that a state court’s

decision was wrong, or to void a state court’s ruling. This is

precisely what this federal court is prohibited from doing under

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. ITT Corp. at 211.

4. Subject matter jurisdiction is also lacking as to

Defendant Steven J. Peterson, an attorney in private practice

whom Plaintiff accuses of violating her rights. To the extent

Plaintiff may be accusing Defendant Peterson of malpractice, such

a claim cannot be heard in this Court because there is no

diversity of citizenship -- Plaintiff and Defendant Peterson are

both citizens of New Jersey and the required diversity under 28

U.S.C. § 1332 is absent. To the extent Plaintiff claims

Defendant Peterson violated her rights to due process or equal

protection, he is clearly a private attorney and not a state

actor as required by the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,

3

Case 1:11-cv-02469-JBS-KMW Document 17 Filed 11/30/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 275
1985. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981)

(holding that even a public defender does not act under color of

state law for purposes of the Civil Rights Act when functioning

as counsel to a defendant); Winters v. Devecka, 130 F. App’x 612,

613 (3d Cir. 2005) (holding that a private attorney representing

the accused in a criminal case does not act under color of state

law for purposes of the Civil Rights Act). This result does not

change when the Plaintiff accuses the attorney of conspiring with

state actors where, as in the present case, the conclusory label

of a “conspiracy” is not backed by any allegations of the grounds

for such an allegation. Reardon v. Reardon, 1988 WL 134699, Civ.

No. 87-3605 at *4-5 (D.N.J. Dec. 13, 1988). Accordingly

Defendant Peterson’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)

will be granted.

5. Consequently, the Court finds that it lacks subject

matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s Complaint, and must grant

Defendants’ motions to dismiss the action. The Court expresses

no opinion on the merits, if any, of Plaintiff’s allegations

because it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of her

Complaint.

4

Case 1:11-cv-02469-JBS-KMW Document 17 Filed 11/30/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 276
The accompanying Order shall be entered.

November 30, 2011 s/ Jerome B. Simandle 

Date JEROME B. SIMANDLE

United States District Judge

5

Case 1:11-cv-02469-JBS-KMW Document 17 Filed 11/30/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 277