Dunaway v. Wallace et al

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
ANTHONY M. DUNAWAY,
SR.,
Plaintiff,
V.
HON. HELEN WALLACE,
etal.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:26-cv-7
Judge Walter H. Rice
Mag. Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
ORDER OVERRULING EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND TEMPORARY RESTRAININGORDER OF PLAINTIFFANTHONY M.
DUNAWAY, SR. (DOC. #4); PLAINTIFF IS ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE WITHIN
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS OF ENTRY WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT OVERRULE
PLAINTIFF'SMOTIONS FOR LEAVETO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPER/S(DOCS.
#1, 3), DISMISS THE COMPLAINT (DOC. #1-1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING
IN A STATE COURT OF COMPETENT JURSIDCTION, AND TERMINATE THE
CAPTIONEDCASE PURSUANTTO THE ABSTENTION DOCTRINE SET FORTH IN
YOUNGER V. HARRIS, 401 U. S. 37 (1971)
Before the Court is the Motion for Preliminary Injunction ("Pl") and
Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") of Plaintiff Anthony M. Dunaway, Sr. (Pl
Motion, Doc. #4). Therein, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants Montgomery
County, Ohio, Juvenile Court Judges Helen Wallace and Julie Bruns and Juvenile
Court Magistrate Hope L. Smalls from any further participation, rulings,
supervision, or interference in Plaintiff's pending state juvenile matters!. ]" (Id. at
PAGEID 71, citing Juvenile Ct. Docket Nos. G-2025-426-01, G-2025-427-01). The Pl
Case: 3:26-cv-00007-WHR-PBS Doc #: 5 Filed: 02/02/26 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Motion arises from the Complaint (Doc. #1-1) attached to his First Motion to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. #1). Therein, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
have unconstitutionally interfered with his parental rights through a custody
hearing in the Juvenile Court, limiting him to supervised visits with his children,
despite not having been adjudged unfit. (Doc. #1-1, PAGEID 8, citing Troxel v.
Granville, 530 U. S. 57 (2000)). Plaintiff further claims that Magistrate Smalls's
treatment of Plaintiff has been motivated by sex-based animus, and that the
Juvenile Court had refused to provide a transcript of the proceedings so that
Plaintiff could prepare his appeal. {Id. ). On January 22, 2026, Plaintiff filed a
Second Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, wherein he updated his financial
records. (Doc. #3, PAGEID 68-69).
As Plaintiff correctly states. Plaintiff must demonstrate the following to
^
obtain a TRO or Pl: "1. A strong likelihood of success on the merits; 2. That the
movant will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction; 3. That the issuance of
the injunction will not cause substantial harm to others; and 4. That the public
interest would be served by the injunction. " [Id. at PAGEID 71-72, citing Winter v.
Natural Resources Def. Council, 555 U. S. 7, 20 (2008)). "The likelihood of success
on the merits is typically the most important factor of a preliminary injunction
analysis, and a preliminary injunction issued where there is simply no likelihood
of success on the merits must be reversed. " Higuchi Int'l Corp. v. AutolivASP,
Inc., 103 F. 4th 400, 409 (6th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Case: 3:26-cv-00007-WHR-PBS Doc #: 5 Filed: 02/02/26 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Unfortunately for Plaintiff, for two reasons, there is no chance that he will
succeed on the merits. First, the entirety of Plaintiff's claims against Defendants
arise from their alleged orders in and statements made during Juvenile Court
proceedings. (Doc. #1-1, PAGEID 8). It has been a bedrock of legal jurisprudence
since "medieval times[, ]" Forresterv. White, 484 U. S. 219, 225 (1988), that judges
and judicial officers are absolutely immune from suit for money damages arising
out of judicial and adjudicative acts. Id. at 227. Moreover, it is long-settled that
such absolute immunity extends to suits, like the instant Complaint, arising under
42 U. S. C. § 1983, even if the judges are accused of acting maliciously or corruptly.
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547, 554-55 (1967). Thus, even if Plaintiff is correct that
Defendants' orders restricting Plaintiff's visitation time arose out of sex-based
animus, rather than a careful, neutral application of the law, Plaintiff's suit against
Defendants would necessarily fail as a matter of law.
Second, Younger v. Ham's set forth the principle that federal courts should
abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a federal claim arising out of certain
ongoing state court proceedings. 401 U. S. 37 (1971). The Supreme Court:
subsequently clarified the scope of Younger abstent\on, holding that it may be
appropriate when the following elements are met: "(1) there must be on-going
state judicial proceedings; (2) those proceedings must implicate important state
interests; and (3) there must be an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings
to raise constitutional challenges. " Sun Refining & Mktg. Co. v. Brennan, 921 F. 2d
635, 639 (6th Cir. 1990), citing Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden St. Bar
Case: 3:26-cv-00007-WHR-PBS Doc #: 5 Filed: 02/02/26 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Ass'n, 457 U. S. 423, 432 (1982). In Sprint Comm'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, the Court
reiterated that abstention should be the exception, and is appropriate only in
"'state criminal prosecutions, ' 'civil enforcement proceedings, ' and 'civil
proceedings involving certain orders that are uniquely in furtherance of the state
courts' ability to perform their judicial functions. '" 571 U. S. 69, 73 (2013), quoting
New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U. S. 350, 368
(1989) {"NOPSF'}. While Vbi//7^e/-abstention is not a jurisdictional threshold, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has stated that "a federal court
mustdec\\ne to interfere with pending state civil or criminal proceedings when
important state interests are involved. " O'Neill v. Coughlan, 511 F. 3d 638, 641
(6th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added).
The ybt//?^*0/-abstention elements are easily satisfied in this case. First,
Plaintiff is involved in an ongoing child custody dispute in state court. (Doc. #1-1,
PAGEID 8-9; Doc. #4). Second, child custody determinations implicate important
state interests, and the Sixth Circuit has held that child custody disputes are
within the scope of Younger abstent\on. See, e. g., Furr-Barry v. Underwood, 59 F.
App'x 796, 797-98 (6th Cir. 2003); Meyers v. Franklin Cnty. Ct. of Common Pleas, 23
F. App'x 201 (6th Cir. 2001). Third, the Sixth Circuit has held that a domestic
relations proceeding in an Ohio state court provides an adequate opportunity for a
plaintiff to raise federal constitutional claims. Kelm v. Hyatt, 44 F. 3d 415, 419-21
(6th Cir. 1995); Meyers, 23 F. App'x at 205-06. Accordingly, even if Plaintiff had set
Case: 3:26-cv-00007-WHR-PBS Doc #: 5 Filed: 02/02/26 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

forth colorable federal constitutional claims arising out of the Juvenile Court
proceeding, the Court would decline to exercise jurisdiction over those claims.
For the foregoing reasons. Plaintiff's Pl Motion (Doc. #4) is OVERRULED.
Given that Defendants are absolutely immune from suit, and Younger abstention
compels this Court to decline jurisdiction even if the Defendants were not
immune. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO S HOW CAUSE within TWENTY-ONE (21) days
of Entry why the Court should not do the following:
1. Overrule Plaintiff's Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docs. #1, 3);
2. Dismiss his Complaint (Doc. #1-1) without prejudice to refiling in a state
court of competent jurisdiction; and
3. Terminate the captioned case upon the docket records of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 30, 2026
v^\-^- 	i4<. c
WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case: 3:26-cv-00007-WHR-PBS Doc #: 5 Filed: 02/02/26 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>