Gonzalez v. Kohout, 6:15-CV-6703G

• Court: United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
• Writing for the Court: ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD United States District Judge
• Parties: JASMINE JAEL GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. JOAN S. KOHOUT, MARQUITA HILL, THERESA DEARCOP, SHAWANDA MARTIN, LATONYA SAUNDERS, CRAIG DORAN and NANCY GEARHART, Defendants.
• Decision Date: 24 November 2015
• Docket Number: 6:15-CV-6703G

JASMINE JAEL GONZALEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
JOAN S. KOHOUT, MARQUITA HILL,
THERESA DEARCOP, SHAWANDA MARTIN, LATONYA SAUNDERS, CRAIG DORAN
and NANCY GEARHART, Defendants.

6:15-CV-6703G

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

November 24, 2015

DECISION AND ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jasmine Jael Gonzalez has filed this pro se action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Dkt. 1) and has requested permission to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) and appointment of counsel (Dkt. 3). Plaintiff claims that the defendants, Family Court Judge Joan S. Kohout, Monroe County Division of Human Services caseworkers Marquita Hill, Shawanda Martin, and LaTonya Saunders, Investigator Theresa Dearcop, Supervising Supreme Court Judge Craig Doran, and English Village School counselor Nancy Gearhart, violated her constitutional rights when Plaintiff's identity as a domestic violence survivor was made public during a court appearance, she was denied due process during proceedings that resulted in her loss of custody of three cousins, and the childrens' rights under HIPAA were violated. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's request to proceed as a poor person is granted, and the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied as moot.

Page 2

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has met the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Therefore, Plaintiff is granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) of 28 U.S.C. requires the Court to conduct an initial screening of this complaint.

United States District Courts have limited jurisdiction, and are "empowered to act only within the bounds of Article III of the United States Constitution and statutes enacted by Congress stemming therefrom." W.G. v. Senatore, 18 F.3d 60, 64 (2d Cir. 1994) (citing Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-80 (1803)). The issue of "[f]ederal subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time during litigation and must be raised sua sponte when there is an indication that jurisdiction is lacking." Hughes v. Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n of the City of N.Y., Inc., 850 F.2d 876, 881 (2d Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).

Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

Plaintiff seeks to reopen a custody case to retain custody of her cousins and have the opportunity to prove that it is in the childrens' best interests to be returned to her custody. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that, in most circumstances,...