United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
REBECCA F. DOHERTY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
June2, 2015, prose plaintiff Wallace Jones filed an
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based upon alleged
conspiracies that occurred in child custody proceedings
before the Family Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District
Court for the State of Louisiana. While exceedingly difficult
to follow, generally the complaint argued there existed a
conspiracy led by a Louisiana juvenile court judge, Louisiana
state court prosecutors and court officials, and DCFS.
According to Mr. Jones, the object of the conspiracy was to
violate the constitutional rights of plaintiff, his children,
and Candace Sims (the mother of plaintiff s children and
plaintiff herein) and to "defraud the federal
government for the federal re-imburstment [sic] for the care
of child in need of care."
to Mr. Jones' Complaint, in August 2012, plaintiffs
children were taken into DCFS custody based on an affidavit
filed by DCFS investigator Cheryl Bethea. According to the
complaint, the grounds stated in the affidavit were
"neglect [and] . . . charges of distrabution [sic] of
marijana [sic] and while in the presence of a minor with
allegations of weed in the room."Thereafter, an
Assistant District Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial
District began proceedings to terminate the parental rights
of plaintiff and his children's mother. On May 22, 2014,
the state court "permanently and irrevocably
terminated" Ms. Sims and Mr. Jones' parental
Jones sought the following relief from this Court: (1)
"the timely return/release of the children"; (2)
"the timely restoration of constitutional parental
rights"; (3) "the timely reversal/dismissal of any
and all adjudication and or judgements" in the state
court matter; (4) "monetary and punitive damages in the
amount of $100, 000, 000.00 to be paid by the State of
Louisiana"; and (5) "the criminal
prosecution/investigation into the corruption displayed
within Judge Clause's court room conspiracy in this
matter to violate the parental constitutional rights
criminally." [Doc. 43, pp. 17-18 (emphasis omitted)]
the Court determined it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction
over Mr. Jones' suit, based upon the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, finding as follows:
It is clear in this matter that plaintiffs lawsuit amounts to
a collateral attack on the state court's judgment
terminating his parental rights: the complaint asks this
court to reverse or dismiss all judgments entered in the
state court proceeding and restore his parental rights. The
sole cause of plaintiffs injury is the state court judgment.
Plaintiffs attempt to classify his alleged injury as a civil
rights injury is prohibited byRooker-Feldman.
Plaintiffs claims are "inextricably intertwined"
with the state court judgment, such that this Court could not
rule in his favor without overturning the state court.
Accordingly, plaintiffs recourse for any constitutional
violations committed by these defendants is on writ of
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
March 16, 2017, Mr. Jones again filed suit in this Court,
seeking the same relief. On March 27, 2017, the Court issued an
Order stating as follows:
For the reasons provided in this Court's Ruling and Order
dismissing this suit without prejudice issued on October 14,
2016 [Doc. Nos. 92, 93], the Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to
STRIKE plaintiffs recent filing [Doc. 95]. As previously
noted, plaintiffs sole recourse in this matter is to file a
writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.
[Doc. 95, p. I]
April 4, 2017, Candace Sims, the mother of Mr. Jones'
children, filed this suit alleging substantially similar
facts, substantially similar claims, and substantially
similar relief as Mr. Jones -most importantly, for these
purposes, "the "timely return/release of the
children." For the reasons previously provided to
Mr. Jones, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter
pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. In light of
the foregoing, Ms. Sims' suit is DISMISSED WITHOUT
Candace Sims is CAUTIONED to familiarize herself with
Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Should Ms. Sims file another complaint
seeking to reverse, dismiss or invalidate the state court
judgment regarding the custody of her children, and if that
suit is found to be without jurisdictional basis, she may be
cast with costs and attorney's fees, and sanctioned
any future pleadings or complaints filed by Ms. Sims, whether
pro se or through counsel, shall be VERIFIED by her
prior to submission and filing with the United States
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.