## Facts

- Brad A. Tidik filed for divorce from Lisa Tidik in the Wayne County Circuit Court (1995).
- Judge Richard C. Kaufman presided over the divorce case and, due to Tidik’s repeated motion practice, ordered that Tidik must post a bond with each future motion as security for potential costs and sanctions.
- After the divorce rulings, Tidik filed a federal action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the divorce proceedings; the federal court dismissed that first case and held Judge Kaufman was immune for his actions in the divorce matter.
- Tidik then filed a second, nearly identical § 1983 complaint in federal court, naming a wide range of defendants connected to the divorce and its aftermath, including:
  - Judge Kaufman and court personnel;
  - Wayne County Friend of the Court personnel (including the director, a referee, a staff attorney, and a social worker);
  - Grosse Ile Township, its chief of police, police officers (including Doe officers), and related individuals;
  - Lisa Tidik and other private persons connected to the family dispute.
- The moving defendants sought dismissal (or summary judgment) based on immunity and failure to state a claim, and Judge Kaufman also requested an injunction preventing Tidik from filing further federal actions relating to the disposition or enforcement of the 1995 divorce.

## Issues

1. Whether a state-court judge is absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims based on judicial acts taken in a divorce case, including imposing a bond requirement on future motions.
2. Whether Friend of the Court officials and related court personnel are protected by immunity for actions taken as part of functions tied to the judicial process in domestic-relations matters.
3. Whether the federal district court lacked jurisdiction because the § 1983 complaint functioned as a collateral attack on state-court divorce rulings (including the bond provision) and related orders.
4. Whether Tidik stated a plausible § 1983 claim against private individuals when the alleged misconduct was not fairly attributable to the state.
5. Whether the complaint stated a claim against municipal and police defendants, including whether it adequately alleged a constitutional violation and a municipal policy or custom causing the alleged injury.
6. Whether the court should enjoin Tidik from filing additional federal actions relating to the disposition or enforcement of his 1995 divorce, given the repetitive litigation history.

## Decision

- The court granted the defendants’ request to dismiss Tidik’s § 1983 complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court held that Judge Kaufman was absolutely immune from § 1983 liability for actions taken in his judicial capacity in the divorce proceedings, including the bond requirement for filing motions.
- The court dismissed claims against Friend of the Court officials and related court personnel, concluding that immunity applied to their challenged conduct because it was performed as part of duties closely connected to the judicial process in the domestic-relations case.
- The court determined that, to the extent Tidik sought relief that would effectively review, alter, or negate the state divorce rulings, the federal district court could not grant such relief because lower federal courts do not sit as appellate courts over state-court judgments.
- The court dismissed § 1983 claims against private parties because the complaint did not plausibly allege that their actions were taken under color of state law (including any adequately pleaded joint action or conspiracy with state officials).
- The court dismissed claims against Grosse Ile Township and the police defendants because the pleadings did not state a viable federal constitutional claim and did not allege facts supporting municipal liability based on an official policy or custom.
- The court granted Judge Kaufman’s request for injunctive relief and barred Tidik from filing further federal actions relating to the disposition or enforcement of his 1995 divorce proceedings without prior court permission.

## Legal Principles

- Judges are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages suits for judicial acts taken within their jurisdiction, even if the plaintiff alleges error, improper motive, or abuse of discretion.
- Court-related officials performing functions that are integral to the judicial process may receive immunity for conduct taken in that role, particularly when carrying out tasks connected to domestic-relations orders and recommendations.
- Federal district courts lack authority to function as appellate reviewers of state-court judgments; claims that would effectively invalidate or revise state-court rulings are outside the district court’s jurisdiction.
- Section 1983 applies only to conduct taken under color of state law; private parties are not liable absent facts showing their conduct is fairly attributable to the state, such as willful joint participation with state actors.
- A municipality is not liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory; a plaintiff must allege a constitutional injury caused by an official policy, custom, or comparable basis for municipal responsibility.
- Federal courts may impose filing restrictions on vexatious litigants after repetitive, duplicative suits, when the restriction is tailored to prevent continued abuse while preserving access for unrelated claims.

## Conclusion

Tidik’s second § 1983 lawsuit, filed after a prior similar dismissal, was rejected because the judicial and court-connected defendants were immune for actions taken in the divorce case, the federal court could not provide relief that would functionally review or interfere with the state divorce rulings, and the complaint failed to plead state action or municipal liability as to private parties and local police/township defendants; the court also entered an injunction requiring prior permission before any further federal filings tied to the disposition or enforcement of Tidik’s 1995 divorce.


Tidik v. Ritsema, 938 F. Supp. 416 (1996)