Mikhail v. Kahn (991 F. Supp. 2d 596, 2014)

OPINION

PRATTER, District Judge.

“On December 1st, 2009, Ms. Kahn initiated what will be a very contentious divorce and custody” proceedings in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 14. This prescient understatement launches a litany of allegations in a 47-page, 279-paragraph Complaint from pro se Plaintiff Nabil Mikhail, who claims that his soon-to-be-ex-wife, Jo-lie Kahn, along with her former lawyer, Dorothy Phillips, and her current lawyer, Alan Fellheimer, conspired with court-appointed psychologists and a psychiatrist, as well as a nonprofit attorney, two child visitation supervisors, and nine Pennsylvania judges, to deprive him of his federal constitutional rights through state court protection from abuse proceedings as well as custody and divorce proceedings. Mr. Mikhail purports to bring his federal claims under 18 U.S.C. § 242 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Counts I and II). He also raises state law claims in Counts III through VI. All the Defendants have moved to dismiss (Docket Nos. 9, 18, 21, 22, 23, 33, 38, 39).

For the reasons explained below — the Rooker-Feldman doctrine’s jurisdictional bar, Younger abstention, the United States Attorney’s sole discretion to prosecute a federal crime, § 1983’s statute of limitations, the private Defendants’ non-state actor status under § 1983, failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted, and judicial and quasi-judicial immunity — the Court dismisses Mr. Mikhail’s Complaint in its entirety.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In December 2009, Ms. Kahn filed for divorce from Mr. Mikhail and also brought a protection from abuse (“PFA”) petition against him. As the result of a PFA order entered after an ex parte hearing, Mr. Mikhail “was evicted from the marital home at 2 a.m. on December 2, 2009” by the police and was “banned from seeing his daughter for 2 weeks.” Compl. ¶ 16. Although another judge “dismissed the Child from the PFA” a week later, that second judge appointed Defendant Dr. Herbert Lustig “to perform a custody evaluation,” and this first PFA otherwise remained in effect until May 2011. Compl. ¶ 17. Ms. Kahn also obtained sole custody of her and Mr. Mikhail’s minor child, allegedly on an ex parte basis, although Mr. Mikhail’s allegations do not make clear whether this custody award was related to the PFA proceedings or to the separate, ongoing custody proceedings.

Mr. Mikhail claims that in January 2010 Dr. Lustig conspired with Ms. Kahn and Ms. Kahn’s then-attorney, Dorothy Phillips (now deceased), to falsely report that Mr. Mikhail had sexually abused their child. See Compl. ¶ 21. Specifically, Mr. Mikhail claims that Ms. Kahn “bribed Dr. Lustig and conspired with him to incriminate [Mr. Mikhail] as [Mr. Mikhail] paid him $6,500 for the evaluation between December 2009 and April 2010 while Mother [Ms. Kahn] paid him $12,500 for services rendered at the same time.” Compl. at 10. Mr. Mikhail claims that Dr. Lustig refused to prepare testimony in favor of Ms. Kahn unless she paid him — after which point he prepared a favorable report for her.

While the authorities investigated Ms. Kahn’s reports of abuse, she filed a second PFA petition, which, again, the presiding judge temporarily granted ex parte and, Mr. Mikhail contends, erroneously. Compl. ¶¶ 22-23. Then, notwithstanding the authorities’ subsequent dismissal of the child abuse allegations as unfounded, Mr. Mikhail alleges, another judge “ordered [him] to see Child only SUPERVISED, and for LIMITED amount of time,” Compl. ¶ 25, and to use the corrupt “Kids First” service for supervision. That same judge also entered an order granting the second PFA petition after a hearing on April 9, 2010. This PFA order, which expired in April 2011, was subsequently extended for one year. When Mr. Mikhail sought an appeal (his Complaint is not clear as to which orders, precisely, he appealed), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed “through numerous non-precedential decisions containing falsehoods and in violation of Plaintiff [sic] constitutional rights.” Compl. ¶ 29.

Mr. Mikhail also alleges that Ms. Kahn used Dr. Lustig’s services for their child without “the approval of [Mr. Mikhail] or the Child Advocate,” Compl. at 10 — that is, it seems, beyond Dr. Lustig’s permitted role as court-appointed custody evaluator. For reasons not entirely clear from the Complaint, in December 2010, the trial court dismissed Dr. Lustig from the domestic relations case and ordered his files and records released. On January 7, 2011, after reviewing these newly available documents, Mr. Mikhail filed a petition for contempt in which he attempted to show “that the PFA was secured through Fraud upon the Court.” See Compl. ¶¶ 30-31.

Mr. Mikhail complains of a number of harms allegedly emanating from the state court proceedings and rulings, including, for example, a judge’s failure to schedule a hearing for “over 22 months,” Compl. ¶ 33; the court’s dismissal of his petition to expunge the PFA orders entered against him, see Compl. ¶¶ 34, 43; the court’s entry of an order, after a hearing at which no evidence was presented, that Mr. Mikhail could not take the child out of Pennsylvania, Compl. ¶36; the court’s hearing of Ms. Kahn’s petition for custody before Mr. Mikhail’s petition for custody, Compl. ¶ 42; the court’s dismissal of Mr. Mikhail’s various subpoenas, see Compl. ¶ 44(1); and the court’s failure or refusal to ask the child advocate/guardian ad litem to be present at a hearing concerning the child, in favor of allowing Ms. Kahn’s attorney to represent the child, see Compl. ¶¶ 45, 46. Mr. Mikhail also alleges that he was denied alimony pendente lite for over two years and that he alone was required to pay the cost of visitation supervisors and the reunification therapist. Compl. ¶¶ 49, 52.

Within this context of assigning error to the defendant judges and their rulings, Mr. Mikhail avers that Maddi-Jane Sobel, the second court-appointed custody evaluator, “insulted [Mr. Mikhail) in' his faith and distorted facts and reported false testimonies.” Compl. at 19. He also alleges that Dr. Anthony Pisa, the court-appointed reunification therapist, inappropriately conferred with the court in a meeting from which counsel were excluded; that the court impermissibly relied on this ex parte meeting instead of considering the evidence before it, Compl. at 20; that during proceedings, Dr. Pisa was “[n]ot being honest” with the court because, for instance, he opined that Ms. Kahn cooperated with the therapy when, Mr. Mikhail asserts, she did not, see Compl. ¶¶ 176-179; and that Dr. Pisa conspired with Ms. Kahn inasmuch as he “did not submit a reunification plan as required by [court] order by December 19, 2012,” Compl. ¶ 48. Against Preston Findlay, counsel for the nonprofit National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Mr. Mikhail levels an allegation of conspiracy with Ms. Kahn to “provide an affidavit that match[ed] their goals.” Compl. ¶ 37. And Mr. Mikhail further claims, after alleging almost no factual content, that Sheila Dugan and Chip Minto, employees of Kids First, conspired with Ms. Kahn to keep him from his daughter.

Mr. Mikhail attempts to channel these alleged wrongdoings into six counts, which often refer to all of the Defendants collectively. He rarely specifies how any given alleged wrongful activity was unlawful or unconstitutional. See Compl. at 24-32. Counts I and II purport to state violations of 18 U.S.C. § 242 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and both, among other things, claim that the judges discriminated against Mr. Mikhail “because of race, gender, [and] religion.” Compl. ¶¶ 218, 239. Count I does not indicate the conduct complained of, but it seems to refer to the custody and divorce proceedings because Count II, in contrast, refers explicitly to the PFA orders. In Count II, Mr. Mikhail claims that the entry of the PFA orders, especially those entered ex parte, violated his constitutional rights by, inter alia, leading to his eviction from the marital home in the middle of the night and because of the accusations of child abuse. He further asserts that the PFA orders “were secured through fraud upon the court” and were

themselves erroneous and unconstitutional. Compl. ¶ 235. Finally, Counts III through VI consist of state law claims for, respectively, violation of Pennsylvania’s Code of Judicial Conduct and its Rules of Professional Conduct; civil conspiracy; concerted tortious action; and malicious prosecution.

For the Defendants’ alleged wrongdoing, Mr. Mikhail seeks injunctive relief, including “[r]elief of all orders made in violation of the Law,” a judicial command that the Defendants cease violating his constitutional rights, a declaration (but, for reasons explained below, not truly declaratory relief) that the PFA orders are unconstitutional, as well as monetary damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Compl. at 46.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of a complaint. Although Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), “in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,’ ” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citation omitted) (alteration in original), the plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do,” id.

To survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Specifically, “[factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. The question is not whether the claimant “will ultimately prevail ... but whether his complaint [is] sufficient to cross the federal court’s threshold.” Skinner v. Switzer, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 1296, 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, assessment of the sufficiency of a complaint is “a context-dependent exercise” because “[s]ome claims require more factual explication than others to state a plausible claim for relief.” W. Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Inc. v. UPMC, 627 F.3d 85, 98 (3d Cir.2010).

In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint, the Court adheres to certain well-recognized parameters. For one, the Court “must consider only those facts alleged in the complaint and accept all of the allegations as true.” ALA, Inc. v. CCAIR, Inc., 29 F.3d 855, 859 (3d Cir.1994); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (stating that courts must “assum[e] that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)”); Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir.2010) (“[A] court must consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant’s claims are based upon these documents.”). The Court must also accept as true all reasonable inferences emanating from the allegations, and view those facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Rocks v. City of Philadelphia, 868 F.2d 644, 645 (3d Cir.1989); see also Revell v. Port Auth., 598 F.3d 128, 134 (3d Cir.2010). But that admonition does not demand that the Court ignore or discount reality. The Court “need not accept as true unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences,” Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., 232 F.3d 173, 183-84 (3d Cir.2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), and “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937; see also Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir.1997) (explaining that a court need not accept a plaintiffs “bald assertions” or “legal conclusions” (citations omitted)). Finally, “if a [claim] is vulnerable to 12(b)(6) dismissal, a district court must permit a curative amendment, unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile.” Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 236 (3d Cir.2008).

For practical reasons, complaints filed by pro se litigants like Mr. Mikhail are held to somewhat “less stringent standards” than those drafted by lawyers. See Henry v. Moore, 500 Fed.Appx. 115, 117 (3d Cir.2012); see also Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244 (3d Cir.2013) (“[W]e tend to be flexible when applying procedural rules to pro se litigants, especially when interpreting their pleadings.”). Even so, the Court must still fulfill its gatekeeper role. See Mala, 704 F.3d at 245. Pro se litigants cannot expect wholesale indulgence of whatever they claim and however they claim it.

III. DISCUSSION

Mr. Mikhail’s Complaint and the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss raise many issues. Many of the defenses overlap, and indeed, although the Complaint must ultimately be dismissed in its entirety, no single doctrine or legal principle is dispositive as to the whole pleading. Thus, for instance, although most of Mr. Mikhail’s claims against the judges might be dismissed on the basis of judicial immunity alone, their discharge on that basis does not resolve the claims against the other Defendants or, possibly, some of Mr. Mikhail’s requests for “declaratory” relief; moreover, jurisdictional issues — the family of legal principles to which Rooker-Feldman belongs, and to which Younger abstention is a close cousin — must come first.

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court is without power to hear Mr. Mikhail’s claims based on the state courts’ protection from abuse orders, which are now final. Similarly, the Court must abstain pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), from considering Mr. Mikhail’s alleged custody- and divorce-based claims because those state proceedings are ongoing within the meaning of that doctrine. At the same time, Mr. Mikhail’s allegations of conspiracy among or between the defendant judges and court-appointed officials and Ms. Kahn and her attorneys must be considered separately because, if they are credited, they are not barred by Rooker-Feldman (given that the due process injury would not result from the judgments), or by Younger (because such a conspiracy would almost certainly fall into Younger’s narrow carve-out for “exceptional circumstances”).

The claims that elude these jurisdictional watchdogs still must face a second line of rigorous defenses, several of which also would render any amendments to certain claims futile, if it were not so already. See Phillips, 515 F.3d at 236. For example, Mr. Mikhail seeks to bring claims under 18 U.S.C. § 242, a criminal statute, but as a private citizen, he cannot do so. He is also barred from bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a number of the Defendants by the statute’s two-year statute of limitations in Pennsylvania. And against several of the Defendants he has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in any event. For instance, he cannot sue Ms. Kahn and her attorneys under § 1983 because they were not state actors (i.e., they did not act under color of law). And, of course, to the extent that any claims then remain against the judges or the court-appointed Defendants, these individuals have judicial and quasi-judicial immunity, respectively, that protects them from both claims for damages and claims for injunctive relief. The application of all of these doctrines and, to the extent possible, their relationship inter se, are explained in detail below.

Finally, because these doctrines, requirements, and principles eliminate all of Mr. Mikhail’s federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

A. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

Much of the relief that Mr. Mikhail seeks from the PFA orders entered against him must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Under Rooker-Feldman, “federal district courts lack jurisdiction over suits that are essentially appeals from state-court judgments.” Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 165 (3d Cir.2010). Named after the two Supreme Court cases that announced it, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983), see Skinner v. Switzer, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 1297, 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011), the doctrine instructs “that the Supreme Court of the United States, and not the lower federal courts, has jurisdiction to review a state court decision,” Parkview Associates P’ship v. City of Lebanon, 225 F.3d 321, 324 (3d Cir.2000). The doctrine is not broad, but, rather, stands for the proposition that there exist “limited circumstances in which [the Supreme] Court’s appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments, 28 U.S.C. § 1257, precludes a United States district court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction in an action it would otherwise be empowered to adjudicate under a congressional grant of authority, e.g., § 1330 (suits against foreign states), § 1331 (federal question), and § 1332 (diversity).” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005).

In 2005, observing that the Rooker-Feldman “doctrine has sometimes been construed to extend far beyond the contours of the Rooker and Feldman cases,” Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 283, 125 S.Ct. 1517, the Supreme Court began an effort to narrow the doctrine, first in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 125 S.Ct. 1517, and most recently in Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S.Ct. 1289. As the Supreme Court has now explained, “Rooker-Feldman is confined to cases of the kind from which the doctrine acquired its name: cases brought by state-court losers inviting district court review and rejection of the state court’s judgments” — i.e., it does not apply to harms somehow related to, but not caused by, state court judgments. Skinner, 131 S.Ct. at 1297 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted) (quoting Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517). Indeed, the four requirements for application of the doctrine, as broken down by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, measure its reduced reach, see Great W. Mining & Mineral Co., 615 F.3d at 166-67, as follows:

(I) the federal plaintiff lost in state court; (2) the plaintiff “complain[s] of injuries caused by [the] state-court judgments”; (3) those judgments were rendered before the federal suit was filed; and (4) the plaintiff is inviting the district court to review and reject the state judgments. Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517. The second and fourth requirements are the key to determining whether a federal suit presents an independent, non-barred claim.

Great W. Mining & Mineral Co., 615 F.3d at 166 (alterations in original).

The second requirement, in particular, merits brief elaboration here. Unless the injury of which the federal plaintiff complains was caused by a state court judgment itself, the claim is not barred, see id., even if this “independent claim ... denies a legal conclusion that a state court has reached in a case to which he was a party,” Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 293, 125 S.Ct. 1517 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted); accord Skinner, 131 S.Ct. at 1297. Thus, for instance, the Supreme Court has instructed, where a plaintiff challenges not “the adverse ... decisions themselves,” but “instead he targets as unconstitutional the [state] statute they authoritatively construed,” then Rooker-Feldman does not apply and the federal district court has jurisdiction to consider the “statute or rule governing the [state court] decision,” Skinner, 131 S.Ct. at 1298 — even if the plaintiff “could have raised his federal claim in the [state] proceeding,” id. at 1298 n. 11.

To be sure, the correct application of this requirement can be difficult in practice. “The critical task is ... to identify those federal suits that profess to complain of injury by a third party, but actually complain of injury ‘produced by a state-court judgment and not simply ratified, acquiesced in, or left unpunished by it.’ ” Great W. Mining & Mineral Co., 615 F.3d at 167 (quoting Hoblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 88 (2d Cir.2005)). If the defendants, rather than the state court judgments, caused the injuries complained of, Rooker-Feldman does not apply and the district court is not barred from reviewing those injuries. Id. Assessing whether the doctrine applies can be particularly difficult in cases like Mr. Mikhail’s, where “a federal plaintiff complains of an injury that is in some fashion related to a state-court proceeding,” id. — such as a claim for fraud upon the court or a claimed conspiracy with the defendant judges, neither of which necessarily compels the conclusion that the state court erred in its decisions — because even injuries that “help[] to cause the adverse state judgments” may be “independent” of those judgments, id. at 168.

It is unnecessary to resurvey more extensively the post-Exxon Mobil doctrine’s topography here, however, because the Third Circuit’s recent case law contains a rather thorough discussion, particularly in Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d at 163-73, that readily can be applied to Mr. Mikhail’s Complaint. His Complaint references three sets of state court proceedings: protection from abuse proceedings, custody proceedings, and divorce proceedings. For reasons explained below, while Rooker-Feldman might apply to certain aspects of the protection from abuse proceedings (namely, injuries caused by the PFA orders), it cannot, for reasons explained below, apply to the child custody proceedings or to the divorce proceedings, which also appear to be ongoing.

1. The Protection from Abuse Orders

Mr. Mikhail’s Complaint avers that the protection from abuse proceedings have terminated and that he is no longer under any PFA order. Apparently, Ms. Kahn filed a total of five PFA petitions, the third, fourth, and fifth of which were withdrawn, dismissed, and stricken, respectively. Compl. ¶ 278(2)(3)-(5). Accordingly, these petitions serve as bases only for Mr. Mikhail’s state law malicious prosecution claim (Count VI). The first two PFA petitions, by contrast, resulted in PFA orders, both temporary and for defined durations. See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 16, 18, 22, 23, 28, 34, 57, 68, 203, 233. The first PFA expired in May 2011, Compl. ¶ 17, and the second expired in or around April 2012, see Compl. ¶¶ 203, 233. The state court refused to expunge the record of them. Compl. ¶ 34. Thus, for immediate purposes, all the PFA orders are final and have expired or otherwise been dismissed, notwithstanding the fact that during their pendency they could have been modified. See 23 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 6117 (“The plaintiff and the defendant may seek modification of an order issued under section 6108 (relating to relief) at any time during the pendency of an order. Except as otherwise indicated in this chapter, modification may be ordered after the filing of a petition for modification, service of the petition and a hearing on the petition.”).

Rooker-Feldman thus applies to Mr. Mikhail’s alleged injuries caused by the first and second PFA orders because all of the four prongs of the doctrine are satisfied. See also, e.g., Walker v. Court of Common Pleas, No. 12-2206, 2013 WL 4647485, at *4-5 (M.D.Pa. Aug. 29, 2013) (applying Rooker-Feldman to a case involving protection from abuse orders). First, Mr. Mikhail “lost” in state court because the PFA orders were entered against him. Second, the only injuries that will be barred are those caused by the PFA orders, as discussed further below. Third, the orders became final before Mr. Mikhail filed the present suit. Finally, Mr. Mikhail invites this Court to review and reject the PFA orders.

Because all four elements are present, Rooker-Feldman applies, and it applies, moreover, “even if those challenges allege that the state court’s action was unconstitutional.” Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486, 103 S.Ct. 1303. As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has explained, “When a federal plaintiff brings a claim, whether or not raised in state court, that asserts injury caused by a state-court judgment and seeks review and reversal of that judgment, the federal claim is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state judgment” and therefore barred from review. Great W. Mining & Mineral Co., 615 F.3d at 170 (emphasis added). “Review of [state court] decisions may be had only in [the Supreme] Court.” Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486, 103 S.Ct. 1303.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has explained this aspect of the doctrine in a passage endorsed in Great Western Mining & Mineral Co., see 615 F.3d at 167, and particularly useful here:

[A] federal plaintiff cannot escape the Rooker-Feldman bar simply by relying on a legal theory not raised in state court. Suppose a state court, based purely on state law, terminates a father’s parental rights and orders the state to take custody of his son. If the father sues in federal court for the return of his son on grounds that the state judgment violates his federal substantive due-process rights as a parent, he is complaining of an injury caused by the state judgment and seeking its reversal. This he may not do, regardless of whether he raised any constitutional claims in state court, because only the Supreme Court may hear appeals from state-court judgments.

Hoblock, 422 F.3d at 87.

Mr. Mikhail’s claim that the state court denied him due process by making ex parte decisions does not bring review of those decisions within this Court’s jurisdiction. On this point, the Supreme Court’s explanation in Feldman is instructive:

[I]t is clear that [Respondents’] allegations that the District of Columbia Court of Appeals acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying their petitions for waiver and that the court acted unreasonably and discriminatorily in denying their petitions in view of its former policy of granting waivers to graduates of unaccredited law schools required the District Court to review a final judicial decision of the highest court of a jurisdiction in a particular case. These allegations are inextricably intertwined with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals’ decisions, in judicial proceedings, to deny the respondents’ petitions. The District Court, therefore, does not have jurisdiction over these elements of the respondents’ complaints.

460 U.S. at 486-87, 103 S.Ct. 1303 (citation omitted); see also, e.g., Middlebrook at Monmouth v. Liban, 419 Fed.Appx. 284, 285-86 & n. 2 (3d Cir.2011) (per curiam) (“[Plaintiff] argues that violations of his due process rights stemmed from the state court trial judge’s errors and that her errors are substantial enough to merit a different outcome.... Although {he] described, among other things, alleged due process violations by the trial judge, they were not independent claims, as he asserts ____”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 247, 181 L.Ed.2d 141 (2011).

Specifically, then, the following of Mr. Mikhail’s claims and requests for relief are barred:

• “[B]ecause of this [first] PFA, [Mr. Mikhail] was evicted from the marital home ... and banned from seeing his daughter for 2 weeks.... ” Compl. ¶ 16. Although the court later dismissed parts of this PFA relating to child abuse, it was this order, rather than the actions of the Defendants, that harmed Mr. Mikhail.

• “Judge Haaz dismissed [Mr. Mikhail’s] petition to expunge [the] PFAs without justification and without due process, all in violation of [Mr. Mikhail’s] constitutional rights.” Compl. ¶ 34. This Court lacks jurisdiction to review Mr. Mikhail’s claim of injury arising from Judge Haaz’s order. Nor may it review Judge Haaz’s order in order to “[i]ssue declaratory relief on Expungement of [the] PFAs that were secured through fraud upon the court, and entered in violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights under the Color of Law.” Compl. at 46.

• The court’s ex parte entry of “PFA orders that were totally inappropriate and unconstitutional.” Compl. ¶ 57. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars exactly this type of claim that a state court judgment was erroneous.

• The court’s ordering Mr. Mikhail “to continue [supervised visitations and subjecting] him to the same terms of [a] PFA although it was expired, and without a hearing or due process of law.” Compl. ¶ 68. Mr. Mikhail’s subjection to an extended PFA order is a harm caused by an order that this Court cannot sit to review.

• Mr. Mikhail claims that the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s opinions that upheld the PFA rulings of the Court of Common Pleas “contain[ed] numerous falsehoods and [were] in violation of Plaintiff [sic] constitutional rights.” Compl. ¶ 29; see also Compl. ¶¶ 73-82 (other assignments of error to the Superior Court’s decisions). Inasmuch as Mr. Mikhail is asking this court to review “the erroneous decision of the Superior Court,” Compl. ¶29, Rooker-Feld man makes clear that this Court has no jurisdiction to do so.

• Finally, Mr. Mikhail prays for “[r]e-lief of all orders made in violation of the Law.... Compl. at 46. Rooker-Feldman bars this Court from reviewing Mr. Mikhail’s blanket claim to relief from the state court PFA orders.

Other courts have reached similar conclusions.

In addition, the Court cannot entertain Mr. Mikhail’s plea to “[i]ssue declaratory relief on the Constitutionality of the PFAs in this case.” Compl. at 46. To do so “would require [this Court] to conclude that the state court made an incorrect legal and/or factual determination and would effectively reverse the state decision or void its ruling. This is exactly the type of determination that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits.” Van Tassel v. Lawrence Cnty. Domestic Relations Sections, 390 Fed.Appx. 201, 203-04 (3d Cir.2010) (per curiam) (citation omitted).

Some additional commentary on this point is necessary, however, because of the distinction between challenging adverse state court decisions themselves and challenging as unconstitutional the statutes on which those decisions rely. See Skinner, 131 S.Ct. at 1298.

This distinction, in essence, comes down to as-applied challenges versus facial challenges and the difference between “declaring” a state order, or application, of a rule or statute unconstitutional and declaring that rule or statute itself unconstitutional in an abstract sense. The former — only reachable by reviewing a state-court decision — is barred by Rooker-Feldman; the latter — unless barred by another doctrine, such as standing — is not. Thus, a state court loser who seeks to challenge as unconstitutional the statutory basis for his loss will not find that particular claim barred by Rooker-Feldman. Indeed, one need not rely solely on the more recent guidance of Skinner or Exxon Mobil, for the Feldman Court drew this very same distinction:

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe v. Pringle, [550 F.2d 596 (10th Cir.1976) ], properly emphasized the distinction between general challenges to state bar admission rules and claims that a state court has unlawfully denied a particular applicant admission. We have recognized that state supreme courts may act in a non-judicial capacity in promulgating rules regulating the bar. Challenges to the constitutionality of state bar rules, therefore, do not necessarily require a United States District Court to review a final state court judgment in a judicial proceeding. Instead, the District Court may simply be asked to assess the validity of a rule promulgated in a non-judicial proceeding. If this is the case, the District Court is not reviewing a state court judicial decision. In this regard, 28 U.S.C. § 1257 does not act as a bar to the District Court’s consideration of the case and because the proceedings giving rise to the rule are non-judicial the policies prohibiting United States District Court review of final state court judgments are not implicated. United States District Courts, therefore, have subject matter jurisdiction over general challenges to state bar rules, promulgated by state courts in non-judicial proceedings, which do not require review of a final state court judgment in a particular case. They do not have jurisdiction, however, over challenges to state court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state court’s action was unconstitutional. Review of those decisions may be had only in this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1257.

Feldman, 460 U.S. at 485-86, 103 S.Ct. 1303 (citations omitted). It should be apparent that statutes — in this case, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — are like Feldman’s state bar rules.

But, like the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in another case, the Court “believe[s] that [Mr. Mikhail] is not seeking declaratory relief in the true legal sense, however. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 57; 28 U.S.C. § 2201. [Although Mr. Mikhail] asks that the ... Court ‘declare’ that his constitutional rights were violated[, djeclaratory judgment is inappropriate solely to adjudicate past conduct.” Corliss v. O’Brien, 200 Fed.Appx. 80, 84 (3d Cir.2006) (per curiam) (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Burrell v. Ross, No. 12-2504, 2013 WL 3097320, at *5 (M.D.Pa. June 18, 2013) (“These claims simply ask the court to declare past action unconstitutional retroactively, which basically amounts to declaring one party liable to another, so declaratory judgment is not appropriate here.”). Mr. Mikhail is really only asking for an as-applied ruling, and that is a request that Rooker-Feldman forbids the Court from even considering. See, e.g., Kwasnik v. LeBlon, 228 Fed.Appx. 238, 242 (3d Cir.2007) (per curiam) (“The Amended Complaint requests review of the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. § 9:2-4(c).... As important, the Amended Complaint includes new requests ... to prohibit enforcement of N.J.S.A. § 9:2-4(c) in divorce proceedings, and to stay his family court proceedings in state court. As to these requests for relief and their accompanying allegations, the District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman as clarified by Exxon Mobil.”); Wagner v. Dist. Att’y, No. 11-762, 2012 WL 2090093, at *5 (W.D.Pa. R & R May 21, 2012) (“Plaintiff is not challenging through this civil rights action the constitutionality or adequacy of the Pennsylvania DNA testing procedures. Rather, he claims that Defendant, as well as the state courts he has sought to obtain relief from, have refused, in violation of his constitutional rights, to provide him with the DNA evidence he seeks.”), adopted, 2012 WL 2089799 (W.D.Pa. June 8, 2012).

Moreover in fact, Mr. Mikhail cannot bring a claim for true declaratory relief—i.e., to declare Pennsylvania’s Protection from Abuse Act, 23 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. §§ 6101-6122, unconstitutional— against the Defendants he has named. Where judges act as adjudicators, as here, they are not the proper defendants in a § 1983 suit challenging the constitutionality of a statute. Brandon E. ex rel. Listenbee v. Reynolds, 201 F.3d 194, 198-200 (3d Cir.2000).

Not all of Mr. Mikhail’s PFA proceedings—based claims are barred by Rooker-Feldman. Of course, any harms caused by Ms. Kahn and her attorneys, such as fraud upon the court or malicious prosecution, for example, are not barred by Rooker-Feldman because they are not caused by any state court judgment (although the fact that they are not barred by Rooker-Feldman does not mean that they survive, as discussed below).

Further, Mr. Mikhail’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 conspiracy claim is not barred. As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Great Western Mining & Mineral Co., “Regardless of the merits of the state-court decisions, if [the plaintiff] could prove the existence of a conspiracy to reach a predetermined outcome in state court, it could recover nominal damages for this due process violation.” 615 F.3d at 173. If Mr. Mikhail can show that the Defendants conspired against him in such a way, he will have shown that he has been deprived the right to an impartial forum— an independent right giving rise to an independent claim that does not directly attack the state court judgments per se. See id. at 172. In the case of such a conspiracy, “the source of [Mr. Mikhail’s] purported injury” would be “the actions of Defendants, and members of the Pennsylvania judiciary, not the state-court decisions themselves.” Id. And for the same reason, to the extent that Mr. Mikhail can show a constitutional violation on part of the Defendants who served in court-appointed roles (Drs. Lustig and Pisa and Ms. Sobel), such as a denial of due process, those claims might not be barred by Rooker-Feldman, either. See, e.g., Marran v. Marran, 376 F.3d 143, 154 (3d Cir.2004) (“[A] finding that the Montgomery County defendants violated Librett’s or [R]’s substantive due process rights in investigating the allegations of abuse would not require a finding that the Court of Common Pleas erred in relying on the report stemming from the investigation....”); Ludwig v. Berks County, 313 Fed.Appx. 479, 482 (3d Cir.2008) (per curiam) (“[A] finding that Drs. Ring and Rotenberg, Meyers, Ullman, and Mark violated Ludwig’s due process rights would not require a finding that the state court erred in relying on their reports. As in Marran, such a determination may have an effect on the custody determination, but Rooker-Feldman is not implicated.”).

2. Whether Rooker or Younger Applies to Custody Proceedings

If Rooker-Feldman were to apply to the state court custody proceedings in this case, its application would be similar to that outlined above for PFA proceedings-based harms. Those harms flowing from the orders themselves would be barred from consideration here, and the Court would likewise be without power to “[i]ssue declaratory relief on the Constitutionality of depriving Child of a Parent without justification” or “declaratory relief on not restricting a U.S. citizen from freely traveling within the U.S. and abroad without justification or any evidence to support such ruling.” Compl. at 46. And, indeed, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Rooker-Feldman dismissals of claims challenging custody orders.

But the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ application of Rooker-Feldman, as opposed to Younger abstention, to child custody orders may be puzzling. In its primary precedential opinion on the matter, Marran v. Marran, 376 F.3d 143, 151 (3d Cir.2004), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals explicitly noted “that litigation regarding custody is still ongoing in the state court,” id. at 155, yet it applied Rooker-Feldman. Cf. Coggeshall v. Mass. Bd. of Registration of Psychologists, 604 F.3d 658, 664 (1st Cir.2010) (“Here, the state-court proceedings had not yet ended, so the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was inapposite. The district court’s other rationale for dismissing these claims is more persuasive. This rationale involves the Younger abstention doctrine.” (footnote omitted)); Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266, 1279 (11th Cir.2009) (“[W]e agree with our sister circuits (the First, Eighth and Tenth Circuits) and hold that state proceedings have not ended for purposes of Rooker-Feldman when an appeal from the state court judgment remains pending at the time the plaintiff commences the federal court action that complains of injuries caused by the state court judgment and invites review and rejection of that judgment.”).

Just a year before Marran, in Anthony v. Council, 316 F.3d 412 (3d Cir.2003), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that “the particular nature of child support orders” required the application of Younger abstention even though the plaintiffs under those orders may not be “currently appearing or scheduled to appear in any particular child support hearing.” Id. at 419.

The Anthony Court reasoned:

Each plaintiff here is under a child support order. Each order requires continual involvement by the New Jersey courts. Under New Jersey law, parents are obligated to provide support until a child is emancipated. Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 443 A.2d 1031, 1037 (N.J.1982). As such, plaintiffs have been, and will remain, under their child support orders for many years. Throughout the duration of the order, the New Jersey courts are charged with monitoring, enforcing and modifying the child support obligations. See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:17-56.9a (providing for review and modification of child support orders); N.J.R. 5:7-5 (providing for monitoring and enforcement of child support orders, including the institution of contempt hearings if obligors fail to make payments); N.J.R. 5:25-3 (explaining the jurisdiction, duties, powers and responsibilities of Child Support Hearing Officers). As is apparent, the New Jersey courts have performed their delegated functions with respect to plaintiffs’ child support orders.

Plaintiffs contend that, because they are not currently appearing or scheduled to appear in any particular child support hearing, including a contempt hearing, there is no “ongoing” or “pending” proceeding. This argument may carry weight in other types of suits. But given plaintiffs’ specific claims here and the particular nature of child support orders, the argument is unavailing.

Id. (footnotes omitted).

Of course, it cannot be gainsaid that where custody proceedings are actually underway, Younger rather than Rook-er applies (as opposed to when they are conceptually underway, as under the Anthony Court’s reasoning). See generally Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 670 (3d Cir.2010) (“The state court actions regarding the registration of the French orders were pending when Lazaridis filed his federal court complaint on December 27, 2006, satisfying [Younger’s] first prong.”). But Anthony’s more inclusive logic, that Younger rather than Rooker should generally — conceptually speaking — -apply to child support adjudication, would seem to be just as strong in the custody context. Thus, “[i]t is reasonable to conclude that custody proceedings must also be viewed as a whole, rather than as individual, [discrete] hearings.” Stefanov v. Ross, No. 12-0472, 2013 WL 3754819, at *5 (M.D.Pa. July 15, 2013) (citing Anthony, 316 F.3d at 420-21).

Indeed, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has repeatedly stated that

[c]hild custody orders are temporary in nature and always subject to change if new circumstances affect the welfare of a child. The Commonwealth has a duty of paramount importance, to protect the child’s best interests and welfare. To that end, it may always entertain an application for modification and adjustment of custodial rights.

Arnold v. Arnold, 847 A.2d 674, 677 (Pa.Super.Ct.2004) (citation omitted). Accordingly, Pennsylvania courts are not bound by previous custody orders. See id.; 23 23 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 5338(a) (“Upon petition, a court may modify a custody order to serve -the best interest of the child.”); 23 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 5323 (“The court may issue an interim award of custody ----”); cf. 23 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § -5422 (“[A] court of this Commonwealth which has made a child custody determination consistent with section 5421 (relating to initial child custody jurisdiction) or 5423 (relating to jurisdiction to modify determination) has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination .... ”). Thus, although certain orders in custody cases are interlocutory and others are final for purposes of appealability through the Pennsylvania courts, see Kassam v. Kassam, 811 A.2d 1023, 1025-28 (Pa.Super.Ct.2002), Pennsylvania courts “recognize the uniqueness of custody orders compared to orders in other civil actions,” id. at 1025; see also, e.g., Holler v. Smith, 928 A.2d 330, 331-32 (Pa.Super.Ct.2007) (“Custody matters are a special creature.... Unlike other actions which have a clear beginning, middle, and end, custody orders may be repeatedly modified.”); Friedman v. Friedman, 224 Pa.Super. 530, 307 A.2d 292, 295 (1973) (“Unlike other judgments or decrees, an order of custody is a unique and delicate matter. It is never final, but is considered temporary in nature, subject to constant review and modification.' Because the State has a duty to protect the children’s best interests and welfare it may always entertain an application for modification and adjustment of custodial rights.”).

Furthermore, the proposition that a federal court considering whether Rooker- Feldman or Younger applies should have to wade into the morass of determining whether a particular child custody order was final, when such proceedings by their very nature are always and necessarily provisional, given the obligation to continue to assess a child’s possibly changing needs, cf. Anthony, 316 F.3d at 419-20, and the Pennsylvania courts have their own rules for finality and appealability, is patently absurd. And again, viewed more broadly, the very structure of child custody proceedings makes one wonder why Rooker-Feldman should apply when an upset parent, like Mr. Mikhail here, can simply petition the Pennsylvania court at any time to modify its custody order and, after those particular proceedings have moved far enough along, seek to appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

For these reasons, and because Third Circuit case law does not explicitly state that Rooker-Feldman, rather than Younger abstention, must apply to child custody proceedings, this Court will evaluate Mr. Mikhail’s custody proceedings— based harms for purposes of Younger abstention rather than for the question of whether Rooker-Feldman applies. See, e.g., Wattie-Bey v. Att’y Gen. ’s Office, 424 Fed.Appx. 95, 96 (3d Cir.2011) (per curiam) (“The District Court was correct that Younger abstention principles dictated dismissal of the complaint, at least with regard to appellants’ claims for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief based on alleged violations of their constitutional rights in the ongoing state court custody proceedings.”). Moreover, Mr. Mikhail’s Complaint itself indicates that the custody proceedings here are actually, and not only conceptually, ongoing. See Compl. ¶ 2 (“On December 1st, 2009, Ms. Kahn initiated what will be a very contentious divorce and custody.” (emphasis added)); Compl. ¶ 96 (allegation against a judge for “not scheduling a hearing for Plaintiff petition to modify custody that was filed April 2013”); Compl. ¶ 160 (“the custody matter is still pending”). The docket of the Montgomery Court of Common Pleas, of which this Court takes judicial notice, and which is attached as an exhibit to the Judges’ Motion to Dismiss, see Judges’ Mot. Dismiss Ex. 2 (Doc. No. 18-3), confirms that this case is still open and ongoing.

B. Younger Abstention

As the discussion above suggests, child custody proceedings are a strong candidate for Younger abstention. Younger abstention is not a jurisdictional principle, but rather a doctrine first announced in the Supreme Court’s Younger v. Harris opinion, in the context of preventing federal courts from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings. As such, it is grounded in “Our Federalism,” or the concept of “a system in which there is sensitivity to the legitimate interests of both State and National Governments, and in which the National Government, anxious though it may be to vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, always endeavors to do so in ways that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the States.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 44, 91 S.Ct. 746. Under Younger, federal courts will abstain from, and therefore dismiss, claims otherwise within the scope of federal jurisdiction when “exceptional circumstances ... justify a federal court’s refusal to decide a case in deference to the States.” Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 584, 591, 187 L.Ed.2d 505 (2013) (citation omitted).

These exceptional circumstances are present in only three types of cases: “ongoing state criminal prosecutions,” “civil enforcement proceedings,” and “civil proceedings involving certain orders ... uniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions.” Id. (ellipsis in original) (citations omitted). The third category, the only potentially applicable to the custody and divorce proceedings at issue here, requires that the state’s interest in maintaining the proceeding in question uninterrupted by the federal judiciary be “of sufficiently great import.” Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 335, 97 S.Ct. 1211, 51 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977). But in cases in which Younger’s requirements are met, our Court of Appeals has instructed, “district courts must abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a particular claim where resolution of that claim in federal court would offend principles of comity by interfering with an ongoing state proceeding.” Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 670 (3d Cir.2010) (emphasis added). This rule is consistent with the Supreme Court’s exhortation that “federal courts should abstain from interfering with the ongoing proceedings” where the Younger doctrine applies. Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 437, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982) (emphasis added).

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals endeavors to demarcate the metes and bounds of this “elusive” doctrine by explaining that for it to apply

(1) there must be ongoing state proceedings that are judicial in nature; (2) the state proceedings must implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings must afford an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims. Even if the necessary three predicates exist, however, Younger abstention is not appropriate if the federal plaintiff can establish that (1) the state proceedings are being undertaken in bad faith or for purposes of harassment or (2) some other extraordinary circumstances exist such that deference to the state proceeding will present a significant and immediate potential for irreparable harm to the federal interests asserted.

Anthony, 316 F.3d at 418 (alterations omitted) (quoting Scholl v. Joyce, 885 F.2d 101, 106 (3d Cir.1989)). The Third Circuit’s Anthony case both lays out the standard as well as makes clear why Younger applies to the custody proceedings — based claims in this case.

1. Ongoing State Proceedings

First, as discussed above, the Kahn-Mikhail child custody proceedings are ongoing, and so Younger’s first prong is satisfied. See supra subsection III.A.2. As the Anthony Court explained, New Jersey child support proceedings form part of “a comprehensive and fluid system designed to address the ever-present and ever-changing realities of child support orders” such that, for purposes of Younger analysis, they “must be viewed as a whole, rather than as individual, discrete hearings.” 316 F.3d at 420-21. The child custody proceedings ongoing here, too, must be viewed in the same way. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained,

The language of the statutory sections is plain and unambiguous; the words allow for modification of any existing custody order any time the best interest of the child requires such.... [T]hough we share the Superior Court’s concern over the possibility of spurious petitions for modification from partial to shared custody orders, we must be mindful of the dynamism of the process of growth and maturity of children, as well as the circumstances of their parents’ lives, where the only constant is change. These are factors which may require continuing review of the best interest of the child, and demand a degree of flexibility such as would allow the court the discretion to make necessary changes when the best interest of the child require such---Consequently, we hold that a petition for modification of a partial custody to shared custody order requires the court to inquire into the best interest of the child regardless of whether a “substantial” change in circumstances has been shown.

Karis v. Karis, 518 Pa. 601, 544 A.2d 1328, 1331-32 (1988).

2. Important State Interests in Custody Proceedings

Second, there can be no quarrel with the notion that child custody proceedings implicate important state interests. Because “[f]amily relations are a traditional area of state concern,” Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 435, 99 S.Ct. 2371, 60 L.Ed.2d 994 (1979); accord Lazaridis, 591 F.3d at 671 & n. 5; Wattie-Bey, 424 Fed.Appx. at 97, “[t]he Supreme Court has expanded the applicability of Younger to ... a state child custody action,” Malachowski v. City of Keene, 787 F.2d 704, 708 (1st Cir.1986) (per curiam) (citing Moore, 442 U.S. 415, 99 S.Ct. 2371), which “is precisely the type of case suited to Younger abstention, as the state proceeding implicates the important state interest of preserving the state’s judicial system.” Lazaridis, 591 F.3d at 671.

What Mr. Mikhail

essentially wants [is] wholesale federal intervention into a state dispute. He seeks the vacation of existing orders and a federal injunction directing future litigation. Were the District Court to grant this relief, it could “readily be interpreted as reflecting negatively upon the state court’s ability to enforce constitutional principles.” Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 604, 95 S.Ct. 1200, 43 L.Ed.2d 482 (1975).

Lazaridis, 591 F.3d at 671. The Younger doctrine “seeks to avoid” this suggestion that state courts cannot enforce constitutional principles — as well as the concomitant necessity of “monitoring] and enforcing] the state courts’ compliance with a federal order” — and instead expects “plaintiffs [to] raise [their issues] in their own cases currently pending in the [state] courts.” Anthony, 316 F.3d at 421 (citations omitted) (quoting Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 462, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974)). Such intervention “is not the proper business of the federal judiciary.” H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613-14 (9th Cir.2000).

3. Adequate Opportunity to Raise Federal Claims

Finally, there is no suggestion that Mr. Mikhail could not have raised his constitutional claims in the state court proceedings. “[T]he burden on this point rests on the federal plaintiff to show ‘that state procedural law barred presentation of [its] claims,’ ” Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 14, 107 S.Ct. 1519, 95 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987) (alteration in original) (quoting Moore, 442 U.S. at 432, 99 S.Ct. 2371), and the plaintiff cannot carry this burden simply by asserting “that state or Commonwealth courts may reject (or have rejected) arguments on the merits,” Duty Free Shop, Inc. v. Administracion De Terrenos De Puerto Rico, 889 F.2d 1181, 1183 (1st Cir.1989) (Breyer, J.) (citing cases). “So long as a plaintiff is not barred on procedural or technical grounds from raising alleged constitutional infirmities, it cannot be said that state court review of constitutional claims is inadequate for Younger purposes.” Hansel v. Town Court for Town of Springfield, 56 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir.1995); see also, e.g., Huffman, 420 U.S. 592, 610, 95 S.Ct. 1200, 43 L.Ed.2d 482 (1975) (“[T]he considerations of comity and federalism which underlie Younger permit no truncation of the exhaustion requirement merely because the losing party in the state court of general jurisdiction believes that his chances of success on appeal are not auspicious.”); Moore, 442 U.S. at 430-31 & n. 13, 99 S.Ct. 2371. Absent some showing of a procedural defect, the presumption is that “[s]tate courts are every bit as competent to deal with the [plaintiffs] claims ... as are the federal courts and this, of course, includes the ability to address claims under both the State constitution and the Federal constitution.” Lui v. Comm’n on Adult Entm’t Establishments, 369 F.3d 319, 326 (3d Cir.2004).

Mr. Mikhail was and remains free to raise the substance of his claims for injunctive relief before the state court sitting to address custody issues. However, it is quite likely that he could not raise claims for damages, and so these claims will not be barred by Younger, and will be considered later in this Opinion under another challenge. There is no bar in custody proceedings to a parent’s raising his federal constitutional rights. In fact, Pennsylvania courts have entertained such claims in custody cases. See, e.g., Schmehl v. Wegelin, 592 Pa. 581, 927 A.2d 183, 187 (2007) (considering an equal protection challenge); Everett v. Parker, 889 A.2d 578, 580 (Pa.Super.Ct.2005) (addressing a due process challenge); Luminella v. Marcocci, 814 A.2d 711 (Pa.Super.Ct.2002) (considering a Fourth Amendment privacy claim); Jackson v. Garland, 424 Pa.Super. 378, 622 A.2d 969, 971 (1993) (addressing Fourteenth Amendment familial relations liberty interest).

4. No Exception to Younger Applies Here

One Younger-related question remains.

. Even when these [three Younger ] requirements are met, it is inappropriate to abstain ... if the plaintiff establishes that “(1) the state proceedings are being undertaken in bad faith or for purposes of harassment or (2) some other extraordinary circumstances exist, such as proceedings pursuant to a flagrantly unconstitutional statute, such that deference to the state proceeding will present a significant and immediate potential for irreparable harm to the federal interests asserted.” Schall v. Joyce, 885 F.2d 101, 106 (3d Cir.1989) (citing Middlesex County Ethics Comm., 457 U.S. at 435, 102 S.Ct. 2515).

Getson v. New Jersey, 352 Fed.Appx. 749, 753 (3d Cir.2009); see also Williams v. Gov’t of V.I. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 360 Fed.Appx. 297, 299-300 (3d Cir.2010). Mr. Mikhail’s contentions make clear that he thinks Younger does not apply, and that he believes the defendant judges have conspired with the other Defendants to deprive him of his federal constitutional rights, or that they have discriminated against him “because of [his] race, gender, [and] religion.” Compl. ¶¶ 218, 239. But these allegations are conclusory, as explained in greater detail below. See also infra subsection III.D.2. “[A] plaintiff seeking to avoid Younger must affirmatively demonstrate the justification for application of an exception”; thus, “[m]ere conclusory allegations of bias are insufficient to overcome Younger ” abstention. Kirschner v. Klemons, 225 F.3d 227, 236 (2d Cir.2000).

First, it is apparent that there are no sufficient allegations (let alone a showing) of bad faith here. It is not enough that a private litigant undertakes the state court proceedings in bad faith. Even leaving to one side the fact that it is implausible that a mother’s desire, such as Ms. Kahn’s, to pursue a divorce and seek custody of her child could constitute actions taken in bad faith, the bad faith exception contemplates a situation in which the state court proceeding in question is “only one of a series of repeated prosecutions to which [federal plaintiff] will be subjected,” Younger, 401 U.S. at 49, 91 S.Ct. 746 (emphasis added); accord Schlagler v. Phillips, 166 F.3d 439, 442 (2d Cir.1999), or perhaps where the tribunal itself acts in bad faith or bias (an “extraordinary circumstance,” as discussed below). By contrast, “[a] state proceeding that is legitimate in its purposes, but unconstitutional in its execution — even when the violations of constitutional rights are egregious — will not warrant the application of the bad faith exception.” Diamon