`Case 1:13—cv—OOO89—ENV—SMG Document 6 Filed 04/18/13 Page 1 of 3 Page|D #: 82
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`—_——___----.-—-____--_—__-——__________—_______.._.._______..--X
`
`JIASATAECHRISTENY JAINITY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`KELLY SARWAY; OHEL AGENCY,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM
`AND ORDER-
`
`13-CV-0089 (ENV)
`
`:
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`'
`
`—.----—————————----—————————-----———————-———————————————————x
`
`VITALIANO, D.J.:
`
`On January 4, 2013, plaintiff Jiasataechristcny Jainity brought this pro se
`
`action under 42U.s.c. § 1983. By Order dated February 25, 2013, the Court
`
`dismissed the complaint with prejudice with respect to all claims against ACS and
`
`against various judicial officers in their official capacity, as well as claims seeking
`
`review of Family Court custody rulings. All other claims were dismissed without
`
`prejudice and with leave to replead to the extent that the amended complaint did not
`
`name as defendant persons or entities otherwiseuimmune to suit. The Court advised
`
`Plaintiff that any amended complaint would be dismissed insofar as it alleged injuries
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00089-ENV-SMG Document 6 Filed 04/18/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 83
`Case 1:13—cv—OOO89—ENV—SMG Document 6 Filed 04/18/13 Page 2 of 3 Page|D #: 83
`
`resulting from adverse rulings by the Family Court.‘
`
`On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint “Sueing [sic] on
`
`Grounds of Termination of Parental Rights.” (Amend. Compl. at 1 (Dkt. No. 5)).
`
`Plaintiff states “I am harmed by the opposing party, because they have terminated
`
`my parental rights. My injury my child will be adopted soon and I am asking for a[n].
`
`injunction to stop this from happening.” (Id. at 2). It could not be more clear that
`
`plaintiff’ s amended complaint seeks review, reversal, and vacatur of the adverse
`
`Family Court ruling depriving her of her parental rights. Although with sharpened
`
`and more limited focus, these claims are nonetheless identical in substance to those
`
`dismissed in the Court’s February 26, 2013 Order. As the Court explained there, it
`
`lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claims plaintiff advances; the Rocker-Feldman
`
`doctrine bars them. See Rocker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of
`
`Columbia Court ofAppeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). If any review of the
`
`Family Court order is available to plaintiff, it is within the state court system; she
`
`asserts no claims in her amended complaint that are subject to federal jurisdiction.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: that the action is hereby
`
`dismissed for the reasons stated above and in this Court’s February 26, 2013 Order.
`
`The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this
`
`‘ The facts of that case are described more fully in the Court's February 26,
`2013 Order, and familiarity with them is presumed.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00089-ENV-SMG Document 6 Filed 04/18/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 84
`Case 1:13—cv—OOO89—ENV—SMG Document 6 Filed 04/18/13 Page 3 of 3 Page|D #: 84
`
`Order and Judgment would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma
`
`pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369
`
`U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
`
`The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and maintain the case on the
`
`closed docket.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`ERIC N. VITALIANO
`
`United States District Judge
`
`Dated: Brooklyn, New York
`April 17, 2013
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
