42 USC § 1983 action asserting violation of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; Subject-matter jurisdiction; Screening pursuant to 28 USC § 1915(e)(2); Dismissal under the “domestic-relations exception” to federal jurisdiction; Ankenbrandt v Richards

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] In an order, the court held that the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff-Johnson’s due process claim based on the “domestic-relations exception” was premature at the screening stage under § 1915(e)(2). A Michigan state court issued a custody order removing Johnson’s child from her care. Proceeding in forma pauperis, she sued under § 1983, alleging among other claims that defendant-state court judge and others violated her due process rights. The district court dismissed her case, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over her federal claim under the domestic-relations exception to federal jurisdiction, which prohibits a federal court from reviewing divorce, alimony, or child custody decrees. On appeal, the court noted that it has yet to determine whether the domestic-relations exception applies to federal-question cases, but that it did not need to decide the issue here. Johnson asserted “that the state court ordered her child removed from her custody without notice, without a ‘finding of parental unfitness’ or a hearing, and without other ‘adequate procedural protections,’ thus violating of her due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. On its face, this is a constitutional claim not subject to the domestic-relations jurisdiction exception to jurisdiction.” Even though she asked the district court to issue an order requiring that her full parental rights be restored, “a remedy that would presumably require findings as to Johnson’s parental fitness and the best interest of her child, [her] federal claim is not obviously ‘a mere pretense’ rather than a legitimate constitutional complaint.” Vacated and remanded.