United States District Court, D. New Jersey
LISBOA, Plaintiff appearing pro se
LAURA COSTELLO STATE OF NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, On behalf of Defendants.
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
matter concerns constitutional claims by Plaintiff, Angel
Lisboa, who is proceeding pro se,  arising out of past and
ongoing child custody proceedings in New Jersey state family
court. Defendants have moved to dismiss all claims in
Plaintiff's complaint. For the reasons expressed below,
the Court will grant Defendants' motion.
on the allegations in Plaintiff's complaint and documents
attached to his complaint, it appears that Plaintiff is the
father of four daughters who are currently in the custody of
Defendant New Jersey Division of Child Protection and
Permanency (CP&P). Previously, the girls were in the
custody of their mother while Plaintiff was incarcerated from
2012 through November 2015, and they remained in her custody
until May 2017 when CP&P removed them from their
mother's care due to neglect.
relates that in May 2017 he met with CP&P caseworkers in
a parking lot while the girls were being treated at a
hospital for a severe case of scabies. Plaintiff claims that
the caseworkers stated the only way Plaintiff could obtain
custody of his daughters was to sign documents agreeing to
his brother and girlfriend supervising him at all times.
Plaintiff claims that he refused to sign the documents, but
the caseworkers said if he did not, the girls would be placed
in foster case. Plaintiff claims that he signed the documents
under duress in order to obtain custody of his
April 10, 2018, CP&P removed the girls from
Plaintiff's care. Plaintiff claims that several reasons
were asserted for the girls' removal, including the loss
of his job. Plaintiff asserts he lost his job due to absences
caused by unnecessary and burdensome requirements imposed by
CP&P such as drug testing and his decision to use doctors
of his choice rather than through state-provided programs. He
was also evicted from his apartment. Plaintiff refutes that
he was neglecting his daughters, which was CP&P's
ultimate basis for their removal. It appears that all four
daughters are currently in foster care and under
has asserted constitutional claims for three events relative
to the custody of his children: (1) the state court's
refusal to provide him with a transcript for an October 10,
2017 family court hearing; (2) the removal of his children from
his custody on April 10, 2018; and (3) the loss of his own
state-provided medical insurance when his daughters were
removed from his custody in April 2018.
along with Defendant Joseph Pizarro, whom Plaintiff claims
was the videotape and transcript coordinator who denied
Plaintiff's October 10, 2017 transcript request, have
moved to dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims on numerous
bases, including sovereign immunity, absolute quasi-judicial
immunity, and failure to state any cognizable claims.
Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendants'
motion, but after Defendants filed their motion, Plaintiff
filed a letter on the docket asking this Court to intervene
in the ongoing state court custody case. (Docket No. 12.)
Subject matter jurisdiction
has brought claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
violations of the U.S. Constitution. This Court has subject
matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's federal claims under
28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Standard for ...