Oleksandra Plyatsko v. Alice Benton

── Oleksandra Plyatsko v. Alice Benton ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 01, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11784 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 05/01/2026 Page: 1 of 12 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11784 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ OLEKSANDRA PLYATSKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JUDGE ALICE BENTON, in her individual and official capacities, JUDGE MANNING, in her official capacity, JUDGE FARMER, in her official capacity, MARCY MILLARD, Guardian ad litem, DR. DAVID FEINSILBER, et al., Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 25-11784 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 05/01/2026 Page: 2 of 12 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11784 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:25-cv-02192-MHC ____________________ Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Oleksandra Plyatsko, proceeding pro se, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three Georgia state court judges, a guardian ad litem, and others for alleged “egregious and ongoing violations of [her] constitutional rights during a prolonged and procedurally defective custody dispute” in Fulton County, Georgia Superior Court. The district court sua sponte dismissed Plyatsko’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) on multiple grounds, including that federal courts generally abstain from hearing child custody and divorce disputes under state law. See United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 767 (2013) (explaining that in certain circumstances the federal government “has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations”); Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 12-13 (2004) (discussing the “domestic relations exception” to the exercise of federal jurisdiction), abrogated on other grounds Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 127-28 (2014); Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 693-704 (1992) (discussing the same). Plyatsko appealed. On appeal, Plyatsko challenges all of the district court’s grounds for dismissal, except abstention pursuant to the domestic USCA11 Case: 25-11784 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 05/01/2026 Page: 3 of 12 25-11784 Opinion of the Court 3 relations exception. Because Plyatsko failed to brief the domestic relations exception issue on appeal, she abandoned any challenge as to this alternative ground for dismissal. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). After careful review, we (1) affirm the district court’s dismissal of Plyatsko’s complaint, but (2) vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss Plyatsko’s complaint without prejudice. I. BACKGROUND A. Plyatsko’s Complaint On April 22, 2025, Plyatsko filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming as defendants (1) Fulton County, Georgia Superior Court Judges Alice Benton, Alexandra Manning, and Kevin Farmer; (2) gu