Reed v. Bashorun et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SHAWN REED,
Plaintiff,
v.
JILL BASHORUN and DEDICATED
OUTPATIENT THERAPY SERVICES,
LLC a/k/a DOTS, LLC,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
) 	Case No. CIV-25-629-PRW
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants Jill Bashorun and Dedicated Outpatient Therapy
Services, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 24). Pro se Plaintiff Shawn Reed filed a Motion
for Leave to File Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Out of Time (Dkt. 26) on
March 16, 2026, well past the February 20, 2026 deadline. However, Defendants have
expressed no position on the Motion (Dkt. 26) and there is little likelihood Plaintiff’s out-
of-time Response (Dkt. 26, Ex. 1) will prejudice them. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
the Motion (Dkt. 26) and accepts the attached Response (Dkt. 26, Ex. 1). Accordingly, this
matter has been fully briefed and is now ripe for review. For the reasons that follow, the
Court GRANTS the Motion (Dkt. 24) and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s federal claims WITH
PREJUDICE and his state law claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Case 5:25-cv-00629-PRW Document 27 Filed 04/24/26 Page 1 of 10

2
Background
This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging a deprivation of constitutional rights at
the hands of Defendant Bashorun acting as a court-appointed psychologist through
Dedicated Outpatient Therapy Services, LLC.
According to the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 22), its attached exhibits, and the
Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Claims (Dkt. 23),1 though unclear, it appears
at an unspecified time that Plaintiff lost custody of his child, M.N.R. At some point in 2021,
Defendant Bashorun was “appointed by the court to provide unification therapy” to
Plaintiff and M.N.R.2 In 2021, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant took deliberate actions that
resulted in the severance of communication between Plaintiff and his minor child.”3
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Bashorun stymied Plaintiff’s opportunity to modify the
custody arrangement to allow him more than supervised visits with M.N.R., refused to
facilitate phone calls between Plaintiff and M.N.R., and required Plaintiff’s wife to vacate
Plaintiff’s residence during M.N.R.’s court-approved overnight visits. Further, Plaintiff
alleges Defendant Bashorun conspired with M.N.R.’s mother to interfere with his parental
rights.
1 Though the Memorandum (Dkt. 23) is not referenced in Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint (Dkt. 22), the Court will nonetheless consider the supplement as constituting
the whole of the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 22).
2 First Amend. Compl. (Dkt. 22), at 5.
3 Id. at 7.
Case 5:25-cv-00629-PRW Document 27 Filed 04/24/26 Page 2 of 10

3
Plaintiff accuses Defendants of violating his Fourteenth Amendment rights, the
Federal Wiretap Act,4 and committing a variety of state torts. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant 	Bashorun’s 	actions 	caused 	him 	severe 	emotional 	harm 	and 	injured 	his
relationship with M.N.R., in addition to causing him to lose sleep, familial association,
financial stability, his job, and his sense of self-worth.
Plaintiff 	seeks 	$750,000 	in 	compensatory 	damages, 	$1,000,000 	in 	punitive
damages, statutory damages under the Federal Wiretap Act, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive
relief 	barring 	Defendant 	Bashorun 	from 	having 	further 	contact 	with 	M.N.R. 	and
compelling production of all therapy records. Defendants now move to dismiss this case
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that their quasi-judicial authority
leaves them immune from suit and that the Court should abstain from issuing injunctive
relief.
The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original Complaint (Dkt. 1) on November 4, 2025,
and gave Plaintiff leave to amend to address Defendants’ quasi-judicial immunity and the
Court’s abstention.5 He timely filed the present Amended Complaint (Dkt. 22) on January
16, 2026.6
4 See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1)(c), 2520.
5 See, generally, Order (Dkt. 16).
6 Plaintiff’s original Amended Complaint was timely filed on November 25, 2025, but was
subsequently struck for including identifying information as to M.N.R.
Case 5:25-cv-00629-PRW Document 27 Filed 04/24/26 Page 3 of 10

4
Standard of Review
In reviewing a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court
must satisfy itself that the pleaded facts state a claim that is plausible.7 All well-pleaded
allegations in a complaint must be accepted as true and viewed “in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff.”8 Additionally, the Court must “draw all reasonable inferences in favor of
the non-moving party[.]”9 While factual allegations are taken as true, a court need not
accept mere legal conclusions.10 “Labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action” are not enough to state a claim.11 In analyzing a 12(b)(6)
motion, courts are permitted to consider documents attached to s complaint, and can review
“documents referred to in the complaint if the documents are central to the plaintiff’s claim
and the parties do not dispute the documents’ authenticity.”12
“A pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent
standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”13 Courts should not, however, “assume
the role of advocate for the pro se litigant.14 And the broad construction of a pro se
7 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
8 Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C., 493 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir. 2007) (quoting David v.
City & Cnty. of Denver, 101 F.3d 1344, 1352 (10th Cir. 1996)).
9 Doe v. Woodard, 912 F.3d 1278, 1285 (10th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted).
10 Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1190–91 (10th Cir. 2012).
11 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
12 Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1186 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(quoting Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936, 941 (10th Cir.2002)).
13 Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted).
14 Id.
Case 5:25-cv-00629-PRW Document 27 Filed 04/24/26 Page 4 of 10

5
plaintiff’s complaint “does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of alleging sufficient facts
on which a recognized legal claim could be based.”15 Because a pro se plaintiff “requires
no special legal training to recount the facts surrounding his alleged injury,” his pro se
status does not overcome the rule that “conclusory allegations without supporting factual
averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be based.”16
Plaintiffs are not required to set forth a prima facie case in their complaints.17
Plaintiffs are, however, required to set forth plausible claims, so in determining whether a
claim is plausible, the elements of a prima facie case are helpful.18
Analysis
I. 	Defendants are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Federal
Wiretap Act.
In his Amended Complaint (Dkt. 22), Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Bashorun “[a]t
all relevant times . . . acted under color of state law in her capacity as a court-appointed
therapist.”19
Absolute immunity shields judges from liability for acts they perform in their
judicial capacity, and this immunity extends to “certain others who perform functions
15 Id.
16 Id. (citations omitted).
17 Khalik, 671 F.3d at 1192.
18 Id. at 1192; see Frappied v. Affinity Gaming Black Hawk, LLC, 966 F.3d 1038, 1054
(10th Cir. 2020); Morman v. Campbell Cnty. Mem’l Hosp., 632 F. App’x 927, 933 (10th
Cir. 2015).
19 Amend. Compl. (Dkt. 22), at 6.
Case 5:25-cv-00629-PRW Document 27 Filed 04/24/26 Page 5 of 10

6
closely associated with the judicial process.”20 Captured in this category of judicial
adjuncts are guardians ad litem and “court-appointed child custody evaluators,” like
Defendant Bashorun.21 Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not entitled to quasi-judicial
immunity 	because 	Defendants’ 	actions 	“exceed[] 	any 	legitimate 	judicially 	related
function.”22 He asserts that Defendants’ alleged falsification of therapy records, improper
monitoring of private communications, and interference with his relationship with M.N.R.
place Defendants “outside the scope of any neutral evaluative function.”23 Plaintiff goes
on to argue that such conduct “is not comparable to judicial decision-making and therefore
is not automatically protected by quasi-judicial immunity.”24
Quasi-judicial immunity has its limits. For example, it does not reach “acts taken in
the clear absence of all jurisdiction.”25 Importantly, an act is not clearly outside all
jurisdiction simply because it was erroneous, malicious, or in excess of the individual’s
authority.26 Plaintiff has plead no facts to demonstrate Defendants acted in the clear
absence of all jurisdiction, while the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 1) concedes that Defendant
20 Ward v. Fisher, 2025 WL 1012868, at *3 (10th Cir. Apr. 1, 2025) (quoting Dahl v.
Charles F. Dahl, M.D., P.C. Defined Benefit Pension Tr., 744 F.3d 623, 680 (10th Cir.
2014) (internal quotations omitted)).
21 Id. (citing Dahl, 744 F.3d at 630 (guardians ad litem); Hughes v. Long, 242 F.3d 121,
128 (3d Cir. 2001) (child custody evaluators)).
22 Resp. (Dkt. 26, Ex. 1), at 3.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Dahl, 744 F.3d at 630 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
26 Id. (quoting Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356–57 (1978)).
Case 5:25-cv-00629-PRW Document 27 Filed 04/24/26 Page 6 of 10

7
Bashorun was appointed by the court to provide reunification therapy to Plaintiff and
M.N.R. 	Actions 	related 	to 	maintaining 	therapy 	records, 	monitoring 	Plaintiff’s
communications with M.N.R., and, otherwise related to his relationship with his child fall
squarely within Defendant Bashorun’s “core duties” in assisting the court in the custody
dispute.27 Plaintiff alleges that these actions were performed improperly, but that is not the
same as showing they were done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.28 The Tenth Circuit
has made clear that immunity such as this “does not protect only the innocent[;]” otherwise
there would be no point to it.29 Plaintiff would need to show that Defendant Bashorun’s
actions were completely unrelated to the child custody process in order to defeat her
immunity defense.30
The Tenth Circuit has applied the same quasi-judicial immunity framework to
claims brought under the Federal Wiretap Act. Accordingly, the Court analyzes Plaintiff’s
Wiretap Act claim under the same functional immunity principles applicable to his § 1983
claim.31 Thus, the Court finds that Defendants are immune from Plaintiff’s § 1983 and
Federal Wiretap Act claims for damages.
27 Ward, 2025 WL 1012868, at *3 (quoting Dahl, 744 F.3d at 630).
28 Id.
29 Dahl, 744 F.3d at 631 (citing Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 687 (10th Cir. 1990)).
30 DeLia v. U.S. Department of Justice, 2021 WL 4258758, at *3 (10th Cir. Sept. 20, 2021)
(citing Edge v. Payne, 342 Fed. App’x 395, 399 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Stein v.
Disciplinary Bd. of Supreme Court of N.M., 520 F.3d 1183, 1195 (10th Cir. 2008))).
31 Dahl, 744 F.3d at 631.
Case 5:25-cv-00629-PRW Document 27 Filed 04/24/26 Page 7 of 10

8
II. 	The Court abstains from granting equitable relief.
The Court originally abstained from exercising jurisdiction under Younger v.
Harris.32 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint failed to address or explain why the Court should
not abstain under 	Younger. In his Response (Dkt. 26, Ex. 1), Plaintiff makes an
undeveloped argument that abstention is not appropriate here because Plaintiff’s claims are
not fully redressable within the state proceedings since some of his claims arise under
federal law. But state courts are capable of hearing claims brought under § 198333 and the
Federal Wiretap Act.34 Further, the Court has already denied Plaintiff damages against
Defendants under § 1983 and the Federal Wiretap Act, leaving only his claims for
injunctive relief and damages for the state tort claims remaining.
For the reasons originally provided in its first Order (Dkt. 16) dismissing Plaintiff’s
original Complaint (Dkt. 1)—which the Court incorporates here by reference and which
Plaintiff has not meaningfully challenged—the Court will not interfere with this state
custody proceeding by enjoining Defendant Bashorun from contacting M.N.R. and
requiring her to turn over her therapy records.35
32 Order (Dkt. 16), at 7.
33 Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 366 (2001).
34 Isaacson v. Isaacson, Case No. CIV-10-678, 2011 WL 1327420, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Apr.
6, 2011).
35 See id. at 6–8.
Case 5:25-cv-00629-PRW Document 27 Filed 04/24/26 Page 8 of 10

9
III. 	The Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims.
Because the Court has denied relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Federal Wiretap
Act, the only remaining causes of action stem from state law. Since the federal questions
that allow this Court to maintain supplemental jurisdiction have now been dismissed, the
Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.36
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion (Dkt. 24) and DISMISSES the
Amended Complaint (Dkt. 22). The Court previously explained to Plaintiff why his claims
in his original Complaint (Dktt. 1) failed and provided him with an opportunity to cure
those deficiencies.37 Because Plaintiff failed in his second attempt to cure those legal
deficiencies with sufficient facts, the Court finds that any additional amendment would be
futile. Further, the Court struck Plaintiff’s original Amended Complaint (Dkt. 17) because
Plaintiff included identifying information concerning a minor child, in violation of Rule
5.2(a).38 Plaintiff was warned that failure to properly redact such information would
potentially result in either the striking of future filings or other appropriate action.39
Plaintiff’s allegedly redacted Amended Complaint (Dkt. 22) includes photographs of
M.N.R., her name, and mental health records. Thus, because further amendment would be
36 RX Medical LLC v. Melton, Case No. CIV-22-731-PRW, 2022 WL 4000712, at *1 (W.
D. Okla. Sept. 1, 2022) (internal citations omitted).
37 See, generally, Order (Dkt. 16).
38 Order (Dkt. 21).
39 Id.
Case 5:25-cv-00629-PRW Document 27 Filed 04/24/26 Page 9 of 10

10
futile and because of Plaintiff’s failure to follow Court orders and Rule 5.2, the Court’s
dismissal as to the federal claims is WITH PREJUDICE.40 Plaintiff’s state law claims are
DISMISSED 	WITHOUT 	PREJUDICE. 	The 	Clerk 	is 	directed 	to 	seal 	Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint (Dkt. 22). A final judgment will follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of April 2026.
40 Knight v. Mooring Capital Fund, LLC (749 F.3d 1180, 1190–91 (10th Cir. 2014)
(internal citations omitted).
Case 5:25-cv-00629-PRW Document 27 Filed 04/24/26 Page 10 of 10