Francois v. Richman

── Francois v. Richman ── Case No.: 25-1237-cv Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 27, 2026 Category: General 25-1237-cv Francois v. Richman UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 27th day of March, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, RICHARD C. WESLEY, BETH ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ Wilkenson Francois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 25-1237 Gabriella F. Richman, Support Magistrate, Defendant. * _____________________________________ * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as reflected above. FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Wilkenson Francois, pro se, Brooklyn, NY. FOR DEFENDANT: No appearance. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (DeArcy Hall, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Wilkenson Francois, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his claims on its own initiative. Francois sued the support magistrate that presided over his family court proceedings, generally alleging that she improperly entered child support orders against him. Francois initiated this suit before the time to appeal the most recent contested child support enforcement had expired. The district court dismissed the complaint as seeking monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from that relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), and without leave to amend. The court concluded that Francois’s claims were barred by judicial immunity, and that abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), or domestic relations abstention may also be warranted. Francois v. Richman, No. 24-cv-5223, 2025 WL 1207659 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 2 24, 2025). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. We review without deference a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Milan v. Wertheimer, 808 F.3d 961, 963 (2d Cir. 2015). Because Francois has represented himself throughout this action, “his pleadings and other filings are interpreted to raise the strongest claims they suggest.” Shakirov v. Philips Medical Systems MR, Inc., 103 F.4th 159, 166 (2d Cir. 2024). 1 Francois argues that the support magistrate was not entitled to judicial immunity because she was a non-judicial officer performing administrative duties. We disagree. In the New York court system, the chief administrator of the courts appoints support magistrates “to hear and determine support proceedings.” N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 439(a). 2 They are authorized to “hear, determine and grant any relief within the powers of the court” in the context of certain types of proceedings, and can 1In quotatio