Reported / Citable
Background
Pro se plaintiff Tracy Johnson sued numerous Texas counties, municipalities, school districts, officers, private individuals, and others over events connected to custody of her children. Her 116-page amended complaint alleged constitutional violations, civil RICO, purported violations of criminal statutes, and Texas-law claims arising from arrests, involuntary mental-health detentions, alleged failures to enforce custody-related orders, and actions by schools and law enforcement.
Johnson sought, among other relief, to void state-court custody orders, secure the return of her children, and prevent enforcement of custody orders favoring Teresa Brewer. The magistrate judge took judicial notice of related Texas appellate decisions involving protective orders and custody-related temporary orders. Johnson also sought an extension because she had been hospitalized; the court accepted her late response to the dismissal motions.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Peter Bray recommended granting the six pending motions to dismiss and dismissing Johnson’s claims. The recommendation concluded that private citizens cannot enforce federal criminal statutes; that Johnson could not litigate her children’s claims pro se; and that federal jurisdiction did not extend to requests to issue or alter child-custody decrees. Claims seeking review of final state judgments were barred by Rooker-Feldman, while claims concerning ongoing custody proceedings warranted Younger abstention.
The recommendation further concluded that Johnson failed to state viable civil RICO, Sections 1985 and 1986, or Section 1983 claims. Her allegations did not plausibly establish racketeering activity or injury to business or property, a race-based conspiracy, state action by private defendants, a municipal policy or custom, or facts overcoming qualified immunity. It recommended dismissing those claims with prejudice, dismissing jurisdictionally barred claims and state-law claims without prejudice, declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, and denying further leave to amend as futile. The magistrate judge granted Johnson’s motion for an extension of time.
Key Takeaways
- A federal court cannot issue or modify child-custody decrees, review final state-court custody judgments, or interfere with qualifying ongoing state custody proceedings.
- Conclusory allegations of a coordinated custody-related scheme did not adequately plead RICO, conspiracy, Monell, or individual Section 1983 claims.
- A pro se parent generally may not prosecute Section 1983 or civil RICO claims on behalf of children.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates the multiple jurisdictional barriers facing federal suits that effectively seek to relitigate state family-court outcomes. It also underscores that expansive allegations against numerous public and private defendants must still identify defendant-specific facts and satisfy the elements of each asserted claim.
Because this was a memorandum and recommendation, the proposed dismissal remained subject to objections and review by the district judge.