Parent & Child – Parents’ suit over removal of children from their care is dismissed

Where parents sued a state court judge, state court agencies and state court employees over the removal of children from their care, but the defendants were entitled to immunity and the claims were otherwise barred, the suit was dismissed.

Background

Crystal Allman and Gary Allman, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, challenge state court proceedings that resulted in the removal of their children. This matter is before the court on multiple motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and the plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify counsel.

Sovereign immunity

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a nonconsenting state by its own citizens in federal court. Virginia has not waived its sovereign immunity to actions under § 1983. A suit seeking damages against state officials in their official capacity is also barred by sovereign immunity, as such a suit would be “against the official’s office, and as such . . . no different from a suit against the State itself.”

All defendants—with the exception of Judge Jones in her individual capacity—enjoy sovereign immunity from the Allmans’ suit for damages. All organizational defendants—a county court system, Virginia’s department of social services and a local department of social services—are “arms of the state” entitled to sovereign immunity.

Judicial immunity

Only the Allmans’ suit against Judge Jones in her individual capacity survives the Eleventh Amendment’s jurisdictional bar against claims for damages. But because the Allmans’ allegations against Judge Jones “aris[e] out of the performance of [her] judicial functions,” Judge Jones enjoys absolute judicial immunity from suit.

The Allmans claim that Judge Jones acted in an administrative—not judicial—capacity and thus has been stripped of judicial immunity. Not so. The Allmans claim that Judge Jones made various evidentiary and courtroom management decisions that violated their federal rights. These are clearly “judicial acts” which grant Judge Jones absolute judicial immunity.

Next, the Allmans argue that Judge Jones’ proceedings occurred “while the case was under active review” by the Supreme Court of Virginia, such that Judge Jones acted “in the absence of jurisdiction” and without judicial immunity. But a judge acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction only “if the matter upon which he acts is clearly outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the court over which he presides.”

In other words, even assuming that Judge Jones temporarily lacked jurisdiction while the case was appealed, such a “lack of ‘jurisdiction’ [due to appellate proceedings] d[oes] not deprive [a trial court] of its subject matter jurisdiction.” And Judge Jones—a judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations court—clearly did not lack subject matter jurisdiction over the Allmans’ child custody proceedings. For these reasons, Judge Jones enjoys absolute immunity from the Allmans’ suit.

Declaratory judgment

The Allmans seek a declaratory judgment from this court stating that “that Defendants’ actions violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.” But the court lacks jurisdiction over the Allmans’ claims for declaratory relief for several reasons.

First, sovereign immunity prevents this court from entertaining a declaratory action against Judge Jones in her official capacity, Augusta County Judicial System and the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Social Services. As to Judge Jones in her individual capacity, the Allmans essentially request “a declaration that Defendants’ past orders and rulings were erroneous.” “Such a request for retrospective relief is barred by judicial immunity.”

Rooker-Feldman

The Allmans seek an injunction “ordering the immediate return” of their children “to their custody” or “alternatively . . . a new hearing with appropriate procedural protections and reasonable accommodations.” The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives this court of jurisdiction to grant such an injunction.

Amend

The Allmans proposed several amendments, including additional defendants and factual allegations. The court finds the proposed additional claims are all futile, with the possible exception of a First Amendment retaliation claim against foster care worker Grace Burdett, which is futile as alleged, but with leave to replead.

Disqualification

The Allmans moved to disqualify James Glick from representing the defendants.  There are many problems with this request. First, this federal court has no power to disqualify Glick from representing parties in future state court proceedings, as the Allmans seem to request.

Moreover, federal courts only have “the power to control admission to its bar and to discipline attorneys who appear before it.” Glick has not appeared before this court in any capacity. Finally, the Allmans have not alleged any misconduct from Glick that would compel this court to take disciplinary action against him.

Defendants’ motions to dismiss granted. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend and disqualify denied.

Allman v. Shenandoah Valley Social Services, Case No. 5:25-cv-00010, March 30, 2026. WDVA at Harrisonburg (Yoon). VLW 026-3-154. 24 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-154
Virginia Lawyers Weekly