Stone v. Child Prot. Servs.

2 Citing cases

  1. Annette v. Haslam

    NO. 3:18-1299 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 27, 2020)   Cited 3 times

    See Mensah v. St. Joseph Cty. Family Indep. Agency, 187 F.3d 636 (6th Cir. 1999) (federal court correctly declined to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiff's civil rights claims for monetary and injunctive relief because they involved domestic relations concerning the custody of his children); LeBlanc v. Hagan, 2017 WL 2779490 (W.D.Ky. June 27, 2017) (the domestic relations exception barred the plaintiff's claims for damages and injunctive relief based on allegations that her constitutional rights were violated by an investigation into dependency, abuse, and neglect allegations that led to the removal of her children); Stone v. Child Prot. Servs., 2016 WL 4821371 (W.D.Ky. Sept. 9, 2016) (Plaintiff's claims for monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief based on alleged violations of his constitutional rights were dismissed under domestic relations exception because he was actually challenging the state family court's child custody proceeding."); Johnson v. Collins, 2015 WL 4546794 (E.D.Ky. July 28, 2015), aff'd (Feb. 2, 2016) (the domestic relations exception required the dismissal of the plaintiff's case in which she alleged that her children had been improperly and illegally removed from her custody and sought injunctive relief and punitive damages).

  2. Wiesmueller v. Oliver

    Case No. 3:18-cv-01257 (M.D. Tenn. Jun. 17, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    Further, calculation of Mr. Wiesmueller's requested damages would require this Court to apply state law to determine his marital share of the accrued equity, which is exactly the kind of endeavor that the domestic relations exception was designed to prevent. Cf. Alexander, 804 F.3d at 1206 (holding that the court had jurisdiction to rule on plaintiff's RICO conspiracy claims because resolution of those claims did "not require [the court] to apply Michigan child custody law, question the state's calculation of child support payments, or otherwise address the merits of the underlying dispute"); see also Stone v. Child Prot. Servs., No. 4:16CV-69, 2016 WL 4821371, at *5 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 9, 2016) (concluding that domestic relations exception applied where court "would have to entangle itself in questions of state family law" to resolve plaintiff's claims). Despite Mr. Wiesmueller's labeling of his claims as such, this is simply not a RICO action.