United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
October 28, 2014
ROBYN HUSKEY, Mother on Behalf of Abbygale Dawn Huskey and JANICE MARIE, Grandmother, Plaintiffs,
THERESA FRENCH, Judge, Drew CountyArkansas Circuit Court Juvenile Division; BILL HUSKEY, Paternal Grandfather; JEREMY LOUIS HUSKEY, Father of Minor; KATHY JOHNSTON; JERE JOHNSTON; MARGIE SAVAGE; CHARLES SYNDNEY GIBSON, Attorney for Kathy Johnston and Billy Johnston; CHUCK GIBSON, Attorney for Kathy Johnston and Billy Johnston; DENISE MCMILLAN, Attorney for Robyn Huskey and Janice Marie; SANDRA BRADSHAW; BARBARA WRIGHT-LANGHAMMER; BYNUM GIBSON, Judge, Drew County Arkansas Circuit Court; DON GLOVER, Judge, Drew County Arkansas Circuit Court; and KENNETH JOHNSON, Judge, Drew County Arkansas Circuit Court, Defendants.
D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge.
1. The mother and grandmother of a child entangled in a bitter custody dispute have filed a voluminous complaint against many people, including several Arkansas judges involved in some way in the case. The mother and grandmother ask this Court to change custody of the child, remove the presiding Arkansas circuit court judge, and transfer the case to a different circuit court. The custody issue seems to be on appeal, subject to the circuit court's continuing jurisdiction.
2. To the extent the mother and grandmother, having lost in state court, seek to take what is essentially an appeal of the state trial court's custody and recusal decisions to this federal court, no jurisdiction exists here. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291-92 (2005). To the extent they're asking this federal court to order that things be done (recusal and transfer) and undone (custody) in a pending state proceeding, the Anti-Injunction Act prevents such an order. 28 U.S.C. § 2283; Vendo Co. v. Lektro Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623, 630 (1977). Again, no jurisdiction. Even if this Court has jurisdiction, prudence, principles of federalism, and Arkansas's interest in child custody issues dictate that this Court abstain from interfering with ongoing state proceedings where the parties are present and fully able to litigate all issues. Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 11 (1987).
3. The Court sees no way to redact all the confidential information in the complaint, its attachments, the three compact discs, or the recent motions. FED. R. CIV. P. 5.2(d). They'll all therefore remain sealed.
Huskey's motions ___ No 1, 3, 8, 9, & 10 ___ are denied as moot. Huskey's complaint is dismissed without prejudice.