From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. City of New York

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Oct 5, 2009
347 F. App'x 850 (3d Cir. 2009)

Summary

affirming district court determination that claims were prohibited to the extent plaintiff sought review of family court decisions regarding emergency removal of children from his home

Summary of this case from Lisboa v. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency

Opinion

No. 07-4239.

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 1, 2009.

Opinion filed October 5, 2009.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 07-cv-01853), District Judge: Honorable Faith S. Hochberg.

Philip Johnson, Newark, NJ, pro se.

Before: BARRY, SMITH and GARTH, Circuit Judges.


OPINION


Philip Johnson sued the City of New York, agencies of the City of New York, including the New York Administration for Children's Services ("ACS"), and ACS case workers. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, alleging that the defendants violated his rights when ACS conducted emergency removals of his children from his home in June 2002 and March 2004 based on allegations of abuse and neglect.

Some of the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the complaint was barred by the doctrines of res judicata and Rooker-Feldman. After reviewing Johnson's complaint against the previous actions he filed in federal court in New York Johnson v. Queens Admin. for Children's Servs., No. 02-cv-04497, 2006 WL 229905 (E.D.N.Y. Jan.31, 2006) (" Johnson I") and Johnson v. New York, No. 04-cv-01070, 2007 WL 764514 (E.D.N.Y. Mar.9, 2007) (" Johnson II"), the District Court dismissed the complaint against all the defendants on res judicata grounds. See Day v. Moscow, 955 F.2d 807, 811 (2d Cir. 1992) (holding that a res judicata defense may be raised in a motion to dismiss when the defense is apparent on review of court records of which a court can take notice). The District Court also concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred review to the extent that Johnson challenged issues already adjudicated in state court. Johnson appeals.

The doctrine derived from Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the District Court's decision. See Venuto v. Witco Corp., 117 F.3d 754, 758 n. 5 (3d Cir. 1997) ("Our review of the district court's application of res judicata rules . . . is plenary."); Turner v. Crawford Square Apts. III, L.P., 449 F.3d 542, 547 (3d Cir. 2006) ("Our review of the district court's application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is plenary.")

On review, we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed Johnson's complaint. To determine the preclusive effects of a prior judgment, we look to the law of the issuing court. See Paramount Aviation Corp. v. Agusta, 178 F.3d 132, 145 (3d Cir. 1999). The issuing courts were federal courts (sitting within the Second Circuit), where, to prevail on the defense of res judicata, a litigant must show "that 1) the previous action involved an adjudication on the merits; 2) the previous action involved the plaintiffs or those in privity with them; [and] 3) the claims asserted in the subsequent action were, or could have been, raised in the prior action." Monahan v. New York City Dep't of Corr., 214 F.3d 275, 285 (2d Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Athlone Industries, Inc., 746 F.2d 977, 983 (3d Cir. 1984). In this case, the defendants satisfied their burden.

Johnson raised claims relating to the emergency removal of the children in June 2002 in Johnson I. The claims were adjudicated on the merits, with the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. In Johnson II, Johnson litigated claims relating to the emergency removal of his children in March 2004. The district court, granting summary judgment in that case, adjudicated those claims on the merits. As the District Court concluded in this case, the claims Johnson raises in his complaint in this action were or could have been raised in his earlier lawsuits. Accordingly, they are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Furthermore, as the District Court determined, to the extent that Johnson actually seeks review of decisions rendered by the Queens County Family Court, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars review. See Turner, 449 F.3d at 547 (discussing the contours of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine).

For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court's decision.


Summaries of

Johnson v. City of New York

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Oct 5, 2009
347 F. App'x 850 (3d Cir. 2009)

affirming district court determination that claims were prohibited to the extent plaintiff sought review of family court decisions regarding emergency removal of children from his home

Summary of this case from Lisboa v. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency

affirming district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims that child services improperly removed his children for abuse and neglect, because Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred review

Summary of this case from Johnson v. Smith

affirming district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims that child services improperly removed his children for abuse and neglect, because Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred review

Summary of this case from Hatfield v. Berube

affirming district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims that child services improperly removed his children for abuse and neglect, because Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred review

Summary of this case from Dougherty v. Adams-Dougherty

affirming district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims that child services improperly removed his children for abuse and neglect, because Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred review

Summary of this case from Hatfield v. Fitzgerald

affirming district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims that child services improperly removed his children for abuse and neglect, because Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred review

Summary of this case from Daisey v. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency

affirming district court application of Rooker-Feldman to bar claims that would effectively review family court decisions

Summary of this case from Courboin v. Scott

affirming district court determination that Rooker-Feldman barred claims to the extent plaintiff sought review of family court decisions

Summary of this case from Wolf ex rel. D.C. v. Escala

affirming dismissal on res judicata grounds and noting "a res judicata defense may be raised in a motion to dismiss when the defense is apparent on a review of court records of which a court can take notice"

Summary of this case from Robinson v. Jushchuk

affirming dismissal on res judicata grounds and noting "a res judicata defense may be raised in a motion to dismiss when the defense is apparent on a review of court records of which a court can take notice" (citing Day v. Moscow, 955 F.2d 807, 811 (2d Cir. 1992))

Summary of this case from Hailey v. City of Camden

affirming dismissal on res judicata grounds and noting "a res judicata defense may be raised in a motion to dismiss when the defense is apparent on a review of court records of which a court can take notice" (citing Day v. Moscow, 955 F.2d 807, 811 (2d Cir. 1992))

Summary of this case from Mindlance, Inc. v. Devinney

affirming district court determination that claims were prohibited by Rooker-Feldman to the extent plaintiff sought review of family court decisions regarding emergency removal of children from his home

Summary of this case from Dobron v. New Jersey

affirming district court determination that claims were prohibited by Rooker-Feldman to the extent plaintiff sought review of family court decisions regarding emergency removal of children from his home

Summary of this case from Reed v. New Jersey Div. of Youth & Family Servs.

affirming district court determination that Section 1983 claims were prohibited by Rooker-Feldman to the extent plaintiff sought review of family court decisions regarding emergency removal of children from his home

Summary of this case from Melleady v. Blake

refusing to adjudicate claims seeking review of family court decisions regarding emergency removal of children from the home on the basis of Rooker-Feldman

Summary of this case from Dawson v. Smith

refusing to adjudicate claims seeking review of family court decisions regarding emergency removal of children from the home on the basis of Rooker-Feldman

Summary of this case from Smith-Goodman v. City of Philadelphia

noting district court may not interfere with family court decisions

Summary of this case from Weber v. McGrogan

involving claims seeking review of family court decisions regarding emergency removal of children from the home

Summary of this case from Smart v. Kraft

involving claims seeking review of family court decisions regarding emergency removal of children from the home

Summary of this case from Williams v. Moore
Case details for

Johnson v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:Philip JOHNSON, Appellant v. The CITY OF NEW YORK; The City of New York…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Oct 5, 2009

Citations

347 F. App'x 850 (3d Cir. 2009)

Citing Cases

Wolf ex rel. D.C. v. Escala

Indeed, several such cases have been filed in this Circuit in recent years, and the Third Circuit has…

Williams v. Moore

More specifically for purposes of this matter, the Third Circuit has consistently affirmed district court…