SCOTT v. SHAW

Page 1 of 10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
JOHN WILLIAM SCOTT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv974-TKW-HTC
NOAH SHAW,
Defendant.
___________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff John William Scott, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has
filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendant Noah Shaw interfered
with the custody of his children. Doc. 1. Shaw has moved to dismiss the complaint
on multiple grounds, including that the Court should abstain from hearing this case
under the domestic relations exception to jurisdiction. Doc. 11. After reviewing the
complaint, the motion, Scott’s response (Doc. 13), the relevant law, and Scott’s state
court litigation, the undersigned finds that the claims Scott raises would require the
Court to become enmeshed in disputes regarding the custody of Scott’s children—a
matter best addressed by the State. Thus, the Court should abstain from exercising
jurisdiction over this domestic matter and GRANT Shaw’s motion.
Case 3:25-cv-00974-TKW-HTC Document 14 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 13

Page 2 of 10
Case No. 3:25cv974-TKW-HTC
I. 	Background1
In late 2023, Shaw, an employee with Families First Network (“FFN”), was
assigned as a case manager to the Scott family. 	Shaw stated an investigative
summary produced by Bea Batchelor for the Florida Department of Children and
Families (“DCF”) listed Scott’s spouse (“Mrs. Scott”) as a victim of domestic
violence. 	Scott 	provided 	“copies 	of 	all 	the 	official 	documentation” 	that
demonstrated he was actually the victim, and the investigative summary was
inaccurate. Shaw said he could not consider the documentation Scott provided and
the 	only 	documentation 	that 	mattered 	was 	the 	investigative 	summary. 	In
communications with DCF, Scott complained that Shaw’s actions “were criminal,”
violated his civil rights, and entitled him to relief. 	But “[n]o relief has been
provided.”
On January 6, 2024—three days after Scott filed for divorce—Mrs. Scott
“absconded” from their home. She drove away “without a valid driver’s license and
without valid insurance.” 	Scott contacted Shaw repeatedly “in the hopes of
maintaining the … parent child bond” with his three minor children but Shaw
stopped communicating with Scott in February or March of 2024.
Scott spoke with Shaw’s supervisor, Beverly Orezzoli, and other FFN staff
during a meeting at the FFN office in Crestview, Florida. 	Orezzoli “supported …
1 The following factual allegations are derived from Scott’s complaint.
Case 3:25-cv-00974-TKW-HTC Document 14 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 13

Page 3 of 10
Case No. 3:25cv974-TKW-HTC
Shaw’s statement and actions during the meeting.” 	Scott asked Orezzoli what
standard 	operating 	procedures 	or 	regulatory 	guidelines 	applied 	to 	FFN 	case
managers. 	Orezzoli stated, “our case managers don’t have specific rules or
guidelines, what we do is not black or white, it’s grey.” Orezzoli provided Scott with
the contact information for Bobbi Lowe, who serves as the contract coordinator for
NWFL 	Health 	Systems 	and 	FFN. 	NWFL 	Health 	Systems 	provided 	“case
management under contract from” DCF.
During a phone call, Lowe told Scott that FFN case managers operate under
the same rules and guidelines as DCF investigators but a “detailed list of rules and
guidelines” for FFN case managers would not be provided to Scott to allow him to
“audit [FFN staff’s] actual field practices.”
Scott learned Mrs. Scott was serving intermittent incarceration for a DUI
charge in Walton County. On June 4, 2024, Scott traveled to Mrs. Scott’s home in
Crestview, but he was not allowed to take custody of the children and remove them
from Mrs. Scott’s home. Scott contacted the Crestview Police Department. When
the responding officers called Shaw, Shaw said “he told the mother he could not
withhold the minor children’s location from [Scott], but decided not to disclose the
children’s location after speaking with the mother.” Scott views this comment as “a
confession of conspiracy.”
Case 3:25-cv-00974-TKW-HTC Document 14 Filed 11/12/25 Page 3 of 13

Page 4 of 10
Case No. 3:25cv974-TKW-HTC
Shaw also informed the officers that a DCF-issued “safety plan”2 was in
effect, limiting Scott’s custodial access to his children. 	The purported safety plan
transferred Scott’s “parental decision-making authority to a nineteen-year-old male
with disabling medical conditions and no legal authority to serve in loco parentis.”
Scott contends no valid safety plan existed at that time and he had not received
notice, a hearing, or an opportunity to contest such a restriction on access to his
children. 	Scott maintains he “was denied custodial access” to his children for
approximately 155 days “due to the conspiracy developed and implemented by”
Shaw.
Based on the foregoing, Scott alleges Shaw: (1) violated his procedural and
substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) violated his
equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) is liable for
intentional 	infliction 	of 	emotional 	distress 	(“IIED”). 	As 	relief, 	Scott 	seeks
compensatory and punitive damages.
II. 	Discussion
Shaw seeks dismissal of Scott’s complaint on multiple grounds. 	In part, he
argues the Court should abstain from hearing this case under the domestic relations
2 Under Florida law, a “safety plan” is defined as “a plan created to control present or impending
danger using the least intrusive means appropriate to protect a child when a parent, caregiver, or
legal custodian is unavailable, unwilling, or unable to do so.” Fla. Stat. § 39.01(78).
Case 3:25-cv-00974-TKW-HTC Document 14 Filed 11/12/25 Page 4 of 13

Page 5 of 10
Case No. 3:25cv974-TKW-HTC
exception to jurisdiction because it would require the Court to “delve into the parties’
domestic affairs.” Doc. 11 at 4.
“The 	federal 	judiciary 	has 	traditionally 	abstained 	from 	deciding 	cases
concerning domestic relations.” Ingram v. Hayes, 866 F.2d 368, 369 (11th Cir. 1988)
(“federal courts generally dismiss cases involving divorce and alimony, child
custody, 	visitation[] 	rights, 	establishment 	of 	paternity, 	child 	support, 	and
enforcement 	of 	separation 	or 	divorce 	decrees 	still 	subject 	to 	state 	court
modification”). The doctrine imposes two limits on federal courts’ power: (1) courts
may not issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees; and (2) even when
subject matter jurisdiction might be proper, courts should abstain from exercising
jurisdiction when “sufficient grounds” exist. Alliant Tax Credit 31, Inc. v. Murphy,
924 F.3d 1134, 1146 (11th Cir. 2019).
Here, Scott has invoked the Court’s federal question jurisdiction by bringing
Fourteenth Amendment claims against Shaw, who Scott alleges is a state actor who
provides child protective services. However, “sufficient grounds” exist that warrant
abstention. 	Specifically, Scott’s claims in this case are based on a child custody
dispute and are intertwined with a number of state court cases and domestic relations
matters involving Scott, his wife, and the state.
Okaloosa County court records indicate there are several cases in state court
relevant to Scott’s pending federal claims. 	First, Mrs. Scott filed a petition to
Case 3:25-cv-00974-TKW-HTC Document 14 Filed 11/12/25 Page 5 of 13

Page 6 of 10
Case No. 3:25cv974-TKW-HTC
establish child support in June 2023. See Scott v. Scott, Okaloosa County Case No.
2023 DR 2427. 	The docket for that case indicates the state court issued an order
establishing child support in December 2023, shortly before Scott filed for divorce
and his spouse left with the children. The existence of the child support case shows
litigation between Scott and his wife regarding their children began well before the
events described in the complaint.
Second, Scott filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on January 3, 2024.
Scott v. Scott, Okaloosa County Case No. 2024 DR 20. 	The docket for that case
indicates: (1) Scott and his wife were actively involved in litigation related to their
marriage and the custody of their children at the time of the events described in the
complaint; and (2) the dissolution proceedings are ongoing. Indeed, Scott filed an
“expedited motion for temporary relief” on February 5, 2024, complaining that Mrs.
Scott left their home in January 2024 with the children, concealed the location of the
children, and would not permit him to contact the children.3 Scott requested that the
children “be placed in his immediate care and custody with timesharing for [Mrs.
Scott] on alternating weekends.” 	The state court held a hearing on the motion on
March 25, 2024. The docket does not reveal the outcome of the hearing—and Scott
never mentions filing the expedited motion in his complaint—but these filings show:
3 A copy of the expedited motion for temporary relief is attached 	to this Report and
Recommendation.
Case 3:25-cv-00974-TKW-HTC Document 14 Filed 11/12/25 Page 6 of 13

Page 7 of 10
Case No. 3:25cv974-TKW-HTC
(1) Scott was litigating issues related to the custody of his children in state court
during the same 155-day period he now claims Shaw unlawfully deprived of him
custody; and (2) Scott’s claims against Shaw would require the Court to delve into
the domestic affairs of the Scotts.4
Third, on June 10, 2024, Scott filed a petition for injunction for protection
against his wife. Scott v. Scott, Okaloosa County Case No. 2024 DR 1657. In part,
the petition asked that the court provide a temporary parenting plan in which Scott
would have custody of the children on alternating weeks and while Mrs. Scott was
in jail. Mrs. Scott then filed a similar petition against Scott on July 17, 2024. Scott
v. Scott, Okaloosa County Case No. 2024 DR 2028. And finally, it appears the state
may have commenced a dependency proceeding at some point in 2025. 	See
Okaloosa County Case No. 2025 DP 78.
Taken together, these state court cases indicate that both at the time Scott
alleges Shaw engaged in misconduct and currently, the Scotts have been embroiled
in contested proceedings regarding the dissolution of their marriage and the custody
of their children. 	Moreover, hearing the claims against Shaw would require the
4 The docket for the dissolution proceeding also indicates Scott filed an “emergency petition for
custody” and an “amended emergency motion for modification of timesharing” on September 26,
2024, which, together, sought custody of the children and state “[t]here is a FFN Safety plan
currently [in] place.” These filings were made around the same time an arrest report was filed in
a still-pending criminal case charging Mrs. Scott with child neglect without great bodily harm.
State v. Scott, Okaloosa County Case No. 2024 CF 2254.
Case 3:25-cv-00974-TKW-HTC Document 14 Filed 11/12/25 Page 7 of 13

Page 8 of 10
Case No. 3:25cv974-TKW-HTC
Court to delve into the domestic relations of the Scotts because the Court would have
to inquire into whether Mrs. Scott properly had custody of the children in early 2024
and evaluate whether Mr. Scott’s custodial rights had properly been limited. These
are issues with which state courts have greater familiarity, and which have been
addressed by the court in Okaloosa County. 	Federal courts have abstained from
exercising jurisdiction in similar situations.5 See Ingram, 866 F.2d at 370 (noting
federal courts should dismiss an action under the domestic relations exception “if
hearing 	the 	claim 	would 	mandate 	inquiry 	into 	the 	marital 	or 	parent-child
relationship”); Ray v. Ill. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 2023 WL 8254434, at
*1 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 29, 2023) (stating the court lacks “jurisdiction over cases
involving divorce and child custody under the domestic-relations exception to
federal-court jurisdiction” and “[s]tate courts have exclusive jurisdiction over those
matters”); Deaton v. Stephens, 2023 WL 6131452, at *9 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 19, 2023)
(finding the domestic relations exception provided a reason for the court to refrain
5 In his response to Shaw’s motion, Scott includes a single sentence addressing the domestic
relations exception. Scott states: “This case is not a domestic-relations or custody dispute before
a state court; it is a § 1983 action for damages stemming from Defendant’s unconstitutional
conduct.” 	Doc. 13 at 4. 	However, Scott takes an overly narrow view of the exception. 	Other
courts have applied the exception to claims seeking damages when those claims require the court
to inquire into domestic matters traditionally left to the states. 	See Keys v. Presbyterian Child.
Home Servs., 2025 WL 2299482, at *1-2 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 8, 2025) (dismissing complaint under
domestic relations exception that sought damages and alleged federal civil rights violations against
defendant for failing to allow plaintiff to see his two sons in accordance with a visitation
agreement); see also Dixit v. Singh, 758 F. App’x 766, 768 (11th Cir. 2018) (“Because federal
courts must also abstain from ‘hearing … claim[s] … [that] mandate inquiry into the marital or
parent-child relationship,’ the district court could not entertain Dixit’s claim seeking damages for
emotional distress.”) (quoting Ingram, 866 F.2d at 370).
Case 3:25-cv-00974-TKW-HTC Document 14 Filed 11/12/25 Page 8 of 13

Page 9 of 10
Case No. 3:25cv974-TKW-HTC
from adjudicating the plaintiffs’ claims because the court “would inevitably be
compelled to conduct an inquiry into various aspects of ongoing custody issues”);
Guevara v. Padin, 2016 WL 7188783, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2016) (“Many courts
‘willingly 	apply 	the 	domestic 	relations 	exception 	to 	federal 	questions 	and
constitutional issues involving intra-family disputes’ and ‘decline jurisdiction over
federal questions which would deeply involve them in adjudicating domestic
affairs.’”) (citation omitted); see also In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890)
(“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child,
belongs to the laws of the states, and not to the laws of the United States.”).
III. 	Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court should abstain from hearing Scott’s claims
under the domestic relations exception to jurisdiction.
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:
1. 	That 	Defendant 	Noah 	Shaw’s 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	(Doc. 	11) 	be
GRANTED, and this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. 	That the clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 12 th day of November, 2025.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00974-TKW-HTC Document 14 Filed 11/12/25 Page 9 of 13

Page 10 of 10
Case No. 3:25cv974-TKW-HTC
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen (14) days of the date of the Report and Recommendation. Any different
deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only
and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of its objections upon
all other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or
recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to
challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1.
Case 3:25-cv-00974-TKW-HTC Document 14 Filed 11/12/25 Page 10 of 13

Filing 	# 	191286311 	E-Filed 	02/05/2024 	04:57:18 	PM
IN 	THE 	CIRCUIT 	COURT 	OF 	THE 	FIRST 	JUDICIAL 	CIRCUIT,
IN 	AND 	FOR 	OKALOOSA 	COUNTY, 	FLORIDA
IN 	RE 	THE 	MARRIAGE 	OF:
JOHN 	WILLIAM 	SCOTT,
Petitioner,
And 	Case 	No.: 	2024 	DR 	000020
SAVANNA 	MICHELLE 	SCOTT,
Respondent.
EXPEDITED 	MOTION 	FOR 	TEMPORY 	RELIEF
COMES 	NOW 	the 	Petitioner, 	by 	and 	through 	the 	undersigned 	counsel,
and 	files 	this 	Expedited 	Motion 	For 	Temporary 	relief and 	states:
1. 	A 	Petition 	for 	Dissolution 	of Marriage 	was 	filed 	1/3/24.
2. 	Prior 	to 	that, 	the 	parties 	resided together 	but 	not 	as 	Husband 	or 	Wife.
3. 	Prior 	to 	the 	filing 	of the 	Petition 	for 	Dissolution, 	the 	Husband 	informed 	the 	Wife 	that
he 	was 	filing 	for 	divorce.
4. 	On 	January 	6, 	2024, 	the 	Husband 	left 	the 	home 	to 	go 	to 	lunch. 	When 	he 	returned, 	the
Wife, 	the 	minor 	children 	and 	the 	Wife's 	vehicle 	were 	not 	at 	home.
5. 	Since 	that 	time, 	the 	Wife 	has refused 	to 	respond to 	the 	Husband's 	questions 	as 	to 	where
the 	minor 	children 	are 	located 	and 	whether 	he 	can 	see 	them. 	She 	will 	only 	respond 	that 	they 	are 	\
fine.
6. 	The 	Wife 	has 	hidden 	the 	children 	from 	the 	Husband 	and 	will 	not permit 	any 	contact.
7. 	The 	Wife 	currently 	has 	A 	pending 	felony 	in 	Walton 	County 	2023 	CF 	000415 	for 	310
DUin 	10 	years. 	It 	is 	unknown 	if she 	is 	currently 	drinking.
8. 	The 	Wife's 	actions 	are 	in 	violation 	of the 	standing 	pretrial 	order 	that 	was 	issued 	on
1
Case 3:25-cv-00974-TKW-HTC Document 14 Filed 11/12/25 Page 11 of 13

1/3/24. 	Although 	the 	Wife 	had 	not 	yet 	been 	served 	when 	she 	left 	the 	marital 	home 	with 	the
children 	on 	1/6/24, 	the 	Husband 	has 	a 	good 	faith 	belief that 	she 	was 	aware 	of the 	court 	filing. 	If
she 	was 	not 	aware 	at 	that 	time, 	she 	was 	served 	on 	1/11/24 	and 	became 	fully 	aware 	of the 	order 	at
that 	time 	and 	has 	filed 	a 	counterpetition. 	Despite 	that, 	she 	has 	refused 	to 	respond 	to 	their 	location
or 	to 	allow 	the 	Husband 	to 	see 	the 	children 	or 	speak 	to 	them.
9. 	The 	Wife's 	blatant 	disregard 	for 	court 	orders 	is 	of concern 	to 	the 	father. 	The 	Wife's
behavior 	is 	similar 	to 	what 	she 	has 	displayed 	in 	the 	past 	when 	she 	refused 	to 	cooperate 	and 	allow
him 	to 	see 	the 	children 	when 	there 	was 	a 	domestic 	violence 	injunction 	in 	place 	and 	order 	that
permitted 	him 	to 	see 	the 	children.
10. 	The 	Husband 	request 	that 	the 	minor 	children 	be 	placed 	in 	his immediate 	care 	and
custody 	with 	timesharing 	for 	the 	mother 	on 	alternating 	weekends.
>
John 	William 	Séott, 	Petitioner/Countférrespondent
STATE 	OF 	FLORIDA
COUNTY 	OF 	OKALOOSA
Sworn 	to 	or 	affiirmea 	an 	subscribed 	before 	me 	by 	means 	of 	_ 	physical 	presence 	or 	] 	online
notarization, 	on 	by 	John 	Scott
[Print, 	type 	or 	stamp 	commissioned 	name 	of
notary 	or 	deputy 	clerk.]
Notary 	Public State of Florida
Jessica 	Michelle Lee
My Commission HH 	113317
Expires 04/04/2025	bud
PUBLIC 	or 	DEPUTY 	CLERK
fe 	lee
Personally 	known
Produced 	identification
Type 	of identification 	produced 	L: 	S300 	-474-82 	Yl.
2
Case 3:25-cv-00974-TKW-HTC Document 14 Filed 11/12/25 Page 12 of 13

CERTIFICATE 	OF 	SERVICE
I 	certify 	that 	a 	copy 	of this 	document 	was 	e-mailed 	to 	the 	person 	listed 	below 	on 	February
2024.
Savanna 	Michelle 	Scott
Unknown
Designated 	E-mail:
VANNA201529@GMAIL.COM
Respectfully 	submitted,
Florida 	Bar 	No. 	0014068
1455 	South 	Ferdon 	Blvd. 	Suite 	D-1
Crestview, 	FL 	32536
Tel. 	(850) 	398-4315
Fax 	(850) 	398-4320
E-Mail: 	susan@winterbergerlaw.com
Secondary-Email:
eservice@winterbergerlaw.com
Attorney 	for Petitioner
By:
Susan 	Winterberger
3
Case 3:25-cv-00974-TKW-HTC Document 14 Filed 11/12/25 Page 13 of 13