Reported / Citable
Background
Pro se plaintiffs Alvin Ray Cooper and Amy Marie Hernandez-Cooper sought a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services and Saint Francis Ministries. They alleged that DFPS violated court orders governing visitation with their children and was pursuing psychological counseling for the children, who were in DFPS care, over the plaintiffs’ objections.
The plaintiffs asked the federal court to order DFPS and Saint Francis Ministries to return the children to their custody immediately. Because the plaintiffs had not consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, Magistrate Judge Amanda “Amy” R. Burch issued findings, conclusions, and a recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), rather than a final ruling on the motion.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended denying the request for a preliminary injunction and TRO, without prejudice to seeking injunctive relief later if circumstances changed. The record did not show that the plaintiffs had given the opposing parties the notice required for a preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1). They also failed to satisfy the requirements for obtaining a TRO without notice because they did not provide specific facts showing immediate and irreparable harm before the opposing parties could be heard or certify their notice efforts and explain why notice should not be required.
The magistrate judge also concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. DFPS is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Ex parte Young exception did not apply because the plaintiffs sued the state agency rather than state officials, likely leaving the DFPS claims barred by sovereign immunity. The plaintiffs likewise failed to allege facts showing that Saint Francis Ministries acted under color of state law. Finally, because the requested relief implicated a state Child Protective Services proceeding, the limited pleadings did not permit a determination of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, including whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or Younger abstention might apply.
Key Takeaways
- The document is a magistrate judge’s recommendation, not a final district-court order resolving the injunction motion.
- A preliminary injunction requires notice to the adverse parties, while an ex parte TRO requires specific proof of immediate harm and a written certification addressing notice.
- The plaintiffs did not establish likely success on their Section 1983 claims because DFPS is not a statutory “person,” sovereign immunity likely applied, and Saint Francis Ministries was not adequately alleged to be a state actor.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates the procedural and jurisdictional obstacles facing litigants who ask a federal court to intervene in state child-protection proceedings. Even urgent requests involving parental custody must satisfy Rule 65’s notice and evidentiary requirements, as well as demonstrate a viable federal claim.
It also underscores that Section 1983 generally does not authorize suit against a state agency and that private organizations are not liable under the statute absent adequately pleaded state action. Depending on the status of the underlying state proceeding, federal review may face additional limits under abstention or jurisdictional doctrines.