Devon Arseneau v. Eliane Pudlowski, et al.

St. Louis, Missouri civil rights violation lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on 42 U.S.C. 1983 legal theories.

Arseneau and her ex-husband litigated custody of their child in the St. Louis County Circuit Court. The state court appointed Elaine Pudlowski, an attorney with Frankel, Ruben, Klein, Payne &Pudlowski, P.C., and Brian Dunlop, an attorney with Dunlop &McCarter, to represent "the best interests of the minor child" as guardians ad litem. It also appointed James Reid, a psychologist with James D. Reid, Ph.D., LLC, to conduct psychological evaluations of both parents and a custody evaluation of the child. Following testimony from Pudlowski, Dunlop, and Reid, the state court ordered that Arseneau's ex-husband receive sole legal custody of the child and that the parents share joint physical custody.



After the state court issued judgment in the child custody dispute, Arseneau filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against Pudlowski, Dunlop, and Reid (collectively, the "defendants"), alleging that a variety of the defendants' actions during the state court proceeding violated her constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.[2] The defendants each filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint. According to the defendants, the district court lacked jurisdiction under Younger abstention and Rooker-Feldman. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). In addition, the defendants argued that Arseneau failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the defendants were entitled to absolute immunity and had not acted under color of state law for purposes of § 1983. The district court granted the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions after it concluded that the defendants were entitled to absolute immunity and had not acted under color of state law.[3] Arseneau appeals the district court's dismissal of her complaint.



* * *





Arseneau and her ex-husband litigated custody of their child in the St. Louis County Circuit Court. The state court appointed Elaine Pudlowski, an attorney with Frankel, Ruben, Klein, Payne &Pudlowski, P.C., and Brian Dunlop, an attorney with Dunlop &McCarter, to represent "the best interests of the minor child" as guardians ad litem. It also appointed James Reid, a psychologist with James D. Reid, Ph.D., LLC, to conduct psychological evaluations of both parents and a custody evaluation of the child. Following testimony from Pudlowski, Dunlop, and Reid, the state court ordered that Arseneau's ex-husband receive sole legal custody of the child and that the parents share joint physical custody.



After the state court issued judgment in the child custody dispute, Arseneau filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against Pudlowski, Dunlop, and Reid (collectively, the "defendants"), alleging that a variety of the defendants' actions during the state court proceeding violated her constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.[2] The defendants each filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint. According to the defendants, the district court lacked jurisdiction under Younger abstention and Rooker-Feldman. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). In addition, the defendants argued that Arseneau failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the defendants were entitled to absolute immunity and had not acted under color of state law for purposes of § 1983. The district court granted the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions after it concluded that the defendants were entitled to absolute immunity and had not acted under color of state law.[3] Arseneau appeals the district court's dismissal of her complaint.

Dismissed.



Affirmed on appeal.