OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff, Michael Deem (“Plaintiff”), an attorney proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, and 22 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202, against his estranged wife, Lorna M. DiMella-Deem (“DiMella-Deem”), his wife’s attorney, Linda Eichen, Esq. (“Eichen”), the Westchester County Family Court Judge presiding over his child custody proceedings, the Honorable Hal B. Greenwald (“Judge Greenwald”), in his individual capacity, and the Supervising Judge of the New York Family Courts in the Ninth Judicial District, the Honorable Joseph A. Egitto (“Judge Egitto”), in his official capacity, alleging violations of his First, Second, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Compl. (Dkt. No. 1).)1 Before the Court are Eichen and DiMella-Deem’s Motions to Dismiss. (Eichen Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 9); DiMella-Deem Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 13).)2 For the follow reasons, Defendants’ Motions are granted.I. BackgroundA. Factual Background1. Plaintiff’s State Child-Custody ProceedingsThe facts recounted below are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint and are assumed to be true for purposes of resolving the Motions.Plaintiff alleges that he and DiMella-Deem are parents to two adoptive children, a thirteen-year-old daughter and a twelve-year-old son. (Compl. 9.) Plaintiff and DiMella-Deem allegedly agreed to raise their children in the Catholic faith and Plaintiff was an active participant in the children’s practice of their religion, including attending mass and participating in catechesis. (Id. 10.) Plaintiff alleges he enjoyed “an excellent relationship with his children” until DiMella-Deem and her “co-conspirators” interfered with his “parental relations by fabricating allegations.” (Id. 11.)Plaintiff alleges that on May 17, 2016, he placed various handguns in the care of Blueline Tactical Supply & Shooting Sports, in Elmsford, New York, and that DiMella-Deem willingly gave him $500 cash to cover the storage fee. (Compl. 12.)On November 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed an action for divorce in Westchester County Supreme Court seeking resolution of custody and equitable distribution of the marital assets. (Id. 13.) On December 6, 2017, DiMella-Deem filed an answer seeking sole custody of the children, which created a custody dispute between her and Plaintiff. (Id. 14.) Plaintiff alleges that in February 2018, DiMella-Deem offered to settle the divorce by giving Plaintiff $10,000 and having him move out of the marital home. Plaintiff rejected the offer. (Id. 15.) DiMella-Deem then allegedly yelled in a loud and hostile tone, “You better back off Michael! You better back off! You don’t think I’ll throw my money at this! Huh?! You don’t think I’ll throw my money at this! You’re going to be sorry! You’re going to have nothing! No money. No home. No family. Nothing! You better back off!” (Id.)“In March and April 2018, Plaintiff and DiMella-Deem filed petitions against each other in Westchester Family Court pursuant to the New York State Family Court Act, Article 8.” (Id. 16.) Plaintiff alleges that on April 19, 2018, DiMella-Deem filed fabricated allegations with Westchester County Child Protective Services (“CPS”), resulting in a no contact temporary order of protection (“TOP”) that precluded Plaintiff from, inter alia, having any contact with his children and being escorted from the marital home by local law enforcement. (Id. 17.) The TOP also required Plaintiff to surrender all firearms to local law enforcement and prohibited him from obtaining any others. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that the Family Court then entered the TOP into the statewide registry of orders of protection and notified local authorities of the same. Local police authorities then entered Plaintiff’s name into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) that same day. (Id. 20.)Plaintiff alleges that he surrendered various long guns to local law enforcement and explained that his handguns were stored at Blueline. Plaintiff informed a police officer that in order to comply with the letter of the TOP both he and Blueline would have to violate criminal provisions of federal and state laws governing firearms because his name had been entered into NICS and his pistol license had expired. (Compl. 21.) The police officer allegedly declined to retrieve the handguns himself, agreed that Blueline and Plaintiff would have to violate federal and state laws governing firearms to comply with the TOP, and directed Plaintiff not to try to obtain the handguns while the TOP was in effect. Plaintiff alleges that he complied with this instruction. (Id. 22.)Plaintiff alleges that on April 25, 2018, DiMella-Deem filed a petition under New York law containing additional fabricated allegations against Plaintiff. (Id. 23.) Plaintiff alleges that he informed the Family Court judge through counsel that he had unequivocal evidence that DiMella-Deem’s allegations were fabricated, but that his statements and the evidence were ignored. A new “no contact” TOP was issued, which allowed for only six hours of supervised visits with his children. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he asked his attorney if he would be afforded a hearing to present his evidence and re-establish contact with his children, and that his attorney “blurted out” in response that “[i]t doesn’t work like that here.” (Id. 31.)On May 10, 2018, DiMella-Deem filed a violation petition in Family Court falsely alleging that Plaintiff stopped DiMella-Deem’s mail at the marital residence and that he “engaged in conduct protected by the First Amendment.” (Id. 24.) Plaintiff alleges that he only stopped by the house to get his own mail and that he “provided proof that day.” (Id.) Nonetheless, the “no contact” TOP was extended, and again allowed for only six hours of supervised visits with his children. (Id.)Plaintiff alleges that on May 15, 2018, DiMella-Deem conceded, and the Family Court acknowledged, that Plaintiff was not a threat to the children. Despite that concession, the Family Court appointed an attorney for the children (“AFC”), Faith Miller, Esq. (“Miller”). At the time Plaintiff was not informed who the AFC would be. (Compl. 25.) Plaintiff alleges that at this point he again asked his attorney if he would be afforded a hearing to present his evidence and re-establish contact with his children, and that his attorney again “blurted out” in response that “[i]t doesn’t work like that here.” (Id. 32.)On June 12, 2018, CPS received an “unfounded an[d] anonymous complaint” of alleged child neglect against Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that the complaint “could have only originated” with DiMella-Deem. (Id. 26.) On June 13, 2018, the AFC filed an emergency order to show cause seeking to suspend all contact between Plaintiff and his children, allegedly “in retaliation for Plaintiff filing a violation petition against [DiMella-]Deem in Family Court.” (Id. 27.) The Family Court signed the order a few hours later, ex parte, and the “no contact” TOP was extended to September 28, 2018, sua sponte. (Id.)Plaintiff alleges that he subsequently learned that the AFC was prohibited from accepting “private pay” assignments pursuant to court rules regarding conflicts of interest, because she is married to the Presiding Judge of the New York State Supreme Court, Second Department. (Id. 28.) On August 17, 2018, DiMella-Deem’s second attorney was relieved as counsel. (Id. 29.)On September 24, 2018, Eichen filed a notice of appearance in Family Court on behalf of DiMella-Deem. (Compl. 33.) On September 26, 2018, Eichen filed an ex parte application to modify the TOP entered on April 19, 2018 to include surrender of Plaintiff’s handguns to Blueline. The application was granted. A new TOP was issued continuing the suspension of all contact between Plaintiff and his children and ordering him to surrender all firearms to local law enforcement or Blueline. (Id. 34.) Plaintiff alleges that Eichen and DiMella-Deem made affirmative misrepresentations that Plaintiff had access to his handguns at Blueline in support of their application, and that Judge Greenwald knew they were affirmative misrepresentations. (Id. 48.)On September 28, 2018, a conference was held by Judge Greenwald. Plaintiff stated that he was in compliance with the TOP filed on April 19, 2018, but Judge Greenwald allegedly refused to hear the matter until he appointed new AFCs for the children. The matter was adjourned to November 9, 2018, and the “no contact” TOP extended to the same day. (Id. 35.)On September 28, 2018, the Family Court granted AFC Miller’s application to be relieved. (Id. 30.) Between September 28 and November 9, 2018, Judge Greenwald appointed an AFC for each of Plaintiff’s children. Plaintiff was allegedly not informed of the appointments. (Id. 36.)On September 29, 2018, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Judge Egitto seeking, inter alia, assistance in being afforded a hearing pursuant to the New York State Family Court Act (“FCA”), §842-a(7), which provides for hearings related to any firearm revocation, suspension, ineligibility, or surrender order. (Id. 37.) On October 2, 2018, Judge Egitto responded to Plaintiff and pointed out that a hearing was already scheduled for November 9, 2018 and a trial on the underlying petitions for January 8 and 9, 2019. (Id. 38.)On November 9, 2018, Plaintiff learned that Judge Greenwald appointed AFCs for each of his children when they appeared in Family Court. Plaintiff objected to the appointment of the AFCs and requested to know the authority by which Judge Greenwald had appointed them. (Compl. 39.) Plaintiff alleges that one of the newly-appointed AFCs is precluded from accepting “private pay” assignments pursuant to court rules regarding conflicts of interest, because he is married to an employee of the Westchester County Family Court. (Id. 40.)Plaintiff alleges that on November 10, 2018, he was “willfully and maliciously deceived and believing that no TOP was in place,” and thus attempted to re-establish contact with his children by sending texts, calling their cell phones, and leaving a voicemail for his son. (Id. 49.) That same day, Plaintiff went to the local police department near the marital home and requested an escort to the house because he believed DiMella-Deem would fabricate new allegations. The police informed Plaintiff that DiMella-Deem had just filed a complaint that Plaintiff violated a TOP, and showed Plaintiff a “no contact” TOP that was signed by Judge Greenwald on November 9, 2018. (Id. 50.)Plaintiff alleges that the TOP incorrectly stated that the Plaintiff was advised in court of the issuance and contents of the TOP, and that the order was personally served upon Plaintiff in court. (Id. 51.) Plaintiff was subsequently arrested and arraigned that day for violating the TOP which he alleges was “secreted from him the day prior.” (Id. 52.)Plaintiff subsequently contacted Judge Greenwald’s chambers and asked that a corrected TOP be issued to reflect that Plaintiff was not advised of the existing TOP in Court and was not personally served with it. Judge Greenwald denied the request. Plaintiff alleges that Judge Greenwald never stated that Plaintiff was wrong in his assessment of the accuracy of the TOP. (Id. 53.)Every TOP issued by the Family Court from April 19, 2018 through the present time has required Plaintiff to, inter alia, surrender his firearms. (Compl. 54.) Plaintiff alleges that the Westchester Family Court never made a finding that Plaintiff presented a physical danger to the children or anyone else, or any other basis to order Plaintiff to surrender his firearms or enter a “no contact” TOP. (Id. 55.)Plaintiff alleges that on multiple occasions while entering the Westchester County Courthouse, he observed a man holding a large sign stating that he has been denied all contact with his children for six years by the Westchester County Family Court, but has never been afforded a hearing. (Id. 56.) Plaintiff alleges that the “Westchester County Family Court has an unconstitutional custom and practice of issuing TOPs without proper cause and rarely, if ever, providing the party against whom the TOP is entered a hearing pursuant to FCA, §842-a(7).” (Id. 57.) Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Defendants’ “constitutional misconduct Plaintiff is the targeted parent of parental alienation.” (Id. 58.)2. Plaintiff’s ClaimsPlaintiff’s first claim is against DiMella-Deem and Eichen under §1983 for violating his First Amendment religious freedom rights by allegedly denying him the right to practice his religion by participation in family mass and catechesis with his children. (Id.
60-62.)Plaintiff’s second claim is against DiMella-Deem and Eichen under §1983 for violating his First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by allegedly denying him his “right to parental relations.” (Id.
