Mannix, Sheila v. Machnik, Thaddeus, No. 06-2120 (7th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted June 28, 2007* Decided July 3, 2007 Before Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge Nos. 06-2120, 06-2369 & 06-2435 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. SHEILA MANNIX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 05 C 7232 Virginia M. Kendall, Judge. THADDEUS MACHNIK, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Order Sheila Mannix is a disappointed litigant. In 1993 the state judiciary awarded Mannix custody of the two sons born or conceived during her marriage to Daniel Sheetz. The decree was modified in 2004 so that Mannix and Sheetz shared custody of the children, and further modified in 2005 to give Sheetz sole custody. The decree as modified in 2005 severely restricts Mannix s access to her sons. Mannix then filed this federal suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against four state judges and unspecified John Doe defendants. She has since attempted to add three additional judges as defendants. Mannix wants the federal court to issue an injunction requiring the state judges to place her sons back in her custody. (It is possible that she also seeks damages, but the state judges have absolute immunity * After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f). Nos. 06-2120, 06-2369 & 06-2435 Page 2 with respect to damages, though not with respect to prospective relief. See Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984).) The district court dismissed the suit under what it called the domestic-relations exception to federal jurisdiction. Whether there is such a generic exception to all federal jurisdiction is doubtful. The Supreme Court has consistently described this doctrine as an interpretation of 28 U.S.C. §1332, the diversity jurisdiction, see Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992), rather than as a rule for all sources of jurisdiction. Cf. Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006) (no probate exception to the bankruptcy jurisdiction). Mannix s action does not depend on §1332. It rests on §1331 (federal-question jurisdiction) and §1343(a) (civil-rights jurisdiction). We need not decide whether there is a domestic-relations exception so sweeping that it would block prospective relief under the civil-rights laws even if a state should adopt an unconstitutional substantive or procedural norm. Cf. M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996) (holding unconstitutional a state rule under which parental rights could be terminated because of inability to pay record transcription costs); Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984) (holding unconstitutional a state rule that a parent s race can determine the award of custody); Loubser v. Thacker, 440 F.3d 439 (7th Cir. 2006) (Constitution forbids decision of child-custody disputes by a bribed judiciary). For Mannix does not seek prospective relief against a statute or rule that is said to be unconstitutional. Instead she contends that the state judiciary has erred in her particular case, and arguments of that kind must be pursued on appeal through the state system rather than by an independent federal suit. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). Claims for prospective relief against the original four defendant judges are moot. One has died; two have recused themselves; the fourth was involved only to preside over a motion for recusal. But Mannix has proposed to add three more state judges as defendants, and her appeal from the denial of the motion to amend the complaint to add these additional defendants cannot be treated as moot. But the Rooker-Feldman doctrine means that any relief from the adverse decision must be pursued through the state appellate system (with the option of seeking certiorari from a final judgment). The core meaning of that doctrine, as the Court stressed in Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (2006), and Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005), is that federal district courts cannot review the merits of decisions made by state courts in civil litigation. To the extent that Mannix wants an injunction that will alter the state court s allocation of custody and the level of child-support payments her ex-husband must provide, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a jurisdictional bar. To the extent that Mannix wants an injunction that will govern future proceedings in state court for all custody decrees are open to revision in light of additional information about the children s best interests the initial problem is the AntiInjunction Act, 28 U.S.C. §2283, which says that federal courts cannot by injunction govern the conduct of state litigation. Whatever wriggle room is allowed by Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972), which holds that §1983 is an exception to §2283, is cabined by Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 481 U.S. 1 (1987), which adds that Nos. 06-2120, 06-2369 & 06-2435 Page 3 federal courts must abstain from disrupting ongoing state litigation in all but the most extraordinary situations. See also Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982); Green v. Benden, 281 F.3d 661, 666 (7th Cir. 2002) (applying this principle to litigation about child custody). There is nothing extraordinary about Mannix s situation. She maintains that Sheetz has deceived the state judges into making bad decisions, but as we have said that argument is person-specific. She does not accuse Illinois of making child custody depend on race or any other attribute placed off limits by the Constitution. Mannix appears to believe that any judge who renders a decision adverse to her must be biased. She maintains that the federal district judge should have recused herself. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994), is a sufficient answer to this line of argument. None of Mannix s other contentions requires separate discussion. AFFIRMED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
