Ronald Reale v. Wake County Human Services , 480 F. App'x 195 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1045
RONALD REALE; DEBRA REALE; MINOR CHILD T.R.B., through next
friends Ronald and Debra Reale; MINOR CHILD S.R.R., through
next friends Ronald and Debra Reale; MINOR CHILD M.R.R.,
through next friends Ronald and Debra Reale; MINOR CHILD
H.M.R., through next friends Ronald and Debra Reale; MINOR
CHILD S.M.R., through next friends Ronald and Debra Reale;
MINOR CHILD J.R.R., through next friends Ronald and Debra
Reale; MINOR CHILD B.R.R., through next friends Ronald and
Debra Reale,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
WAKE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES; RAMON ROJANO; WARREN LUDWIG;
LISA CAULEY; VIRGINIA KING; JOHN GUSTAVSON; NIKKI LYONS;
RICHARD HAYNER; NANCY BRAKE; JULIE RIGGINS; SAUNDRA JUDD;
JILL GREEN; GINGER GIALANELLA; JAMIE SESSOMS; LAURIE SCHOLL;
JUDGE ERIC CHASE; JUDGE LORI CHRISTIAN; JUDGE MONICA
BOUSMAN; JUDGE JANE GRAY; STEVE COMBS; RICK CROUTHARMEL;
ALBERT SINGER; WAKE COUNTY GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM;
BACCUHUS CARVER; SUSAN VICK; MELLONEE KENNEDY; LAS VEGAS
METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHILD HAVEN; WRENN HOUSE; WAKE
HOUSE; KELLI-ANN REALE; TIMOTHY GRIEGO; NATASHA WILDE-BRANT;
ROBIN DOMINGUEZ; RHONDA ANDERBERG; GERARD ANDERBERG;
CHRISTOPHER ANDERBERG; MAIN STREET CLINICAL ASSOCIATES; DR.
KARIN YOCH; CAROLINA PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH SERVICES; JOYCE
WILLIAMS; COMMISSIONER JOHN VINEYARD; COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; BRUCE RUDBERG; COURTNEY
BARZANDEH,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:11-cv-00682-D)
Submitted: April 20, 2012 Decided: May 4, 2012
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Reale and Debra Reale, Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Ronald and Debra Reale, acting on behalf of themselves
and their minor children, appeal the district court’s dismissal
of their pro se civil complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006).
We vacate and remand to the district court.
The district court premised its dismissal on lack of
jurisdiction. It concluded that no federal question was at
issue, diversity of citizenship was not present, and “the
domestic-relations exception to federal jurisdiction applies.”
We review legal determinations, including the breadth of a
district court’s jurisdiction, de novo. Simmons v. United
Mortg. & Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 762 (4th Cir. 2011).
While the district court correctly found that
diversity jurisdiction was lacking, we cannot agree that no
federal question was presented. The Reales’ complaint
specifically invoked § 1983 as a basis for jurisdiction,
claiming that state actors had deprived them of their children
without due process. 1 While we have no basis to assess the
1
It appears that some of the Defendants named in the
complaint may not be state actors. Thus, the district court
will have to determine whether the Reales’ complaint fails to
state a viable claim under § 1983 against some or all of the
Defendants. That uncertainty, however, does not bear upon the
jurisdiction of the district court.
3
viability of the complaint, its constitutional character is
undeniable.
Nor does the domestic relations exception undermine
federal question jurisdiction where it otherwise exists. As
construed by the Supreme Court, “the domestic relations
exception encompasses only cases involving the issuance of a
divorce, alimony, or child custody decree.” Ankenbrandt v.
Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 704 (1992). Federal courts “lack power
to issue these types of decrees because of the special
proficiency developed by state tribunals over the past century
and a half in handling issues that arise in the granting of such
decrees.” Id. The exception is statutory, not constitutional,
in nature, and derives from construction of the diversity
jurisdiction statute. Id. at 700-01. Thus, the domestic
relations exception “is applied only as a judicially implied
limitation on the diversity jurisdiction; it has no generally
recognized application as a limitation on federal question
jurisdiction.” United States v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 476, 481 (4th
Cir. 1997); see also Atwood v. Fort Peck Tribal Court
Assiniboine, 513 F.3d 943, 947 (9th Cir. 2008).
Because the Reales’ complaint is based on federal
question jurisdiction, not diversity of citizenship, the
domestic relations exception does not limit the district court’s
4
jurisdiction over it. We therefore vacate the district court’s
dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
The district court also found that the Reales could
not bring a pro se lawsuit on behalf of their minor children.
On appeal, the Reales concede they cannot press their children’s
claims pro se. See Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub. Sch., 418 F.3d
395, 401 (4th Cir. 2005). However, they request remand so that
they can retain counsel on behalf of their children or seek
appointment of counsel by the district court. We grant their
request for remand of their children’s claims. However, if they
fail to retain counsel and the district court does not appoint
counsel, their children’s claims should be dismissed without
prejudice. 2
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order of
dismissal and remand. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2
By our order of remand, we make no comment on the
propriety of appointment of counsel in this case.
5