Hayriye Beril Gok v. United States of America

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 23-2150
__________
HAYRIYE BERIL GOK,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;
MERRICK B. GARLAND, THE US ATTORNEY; FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION; CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY, THE US DIRECTOR OF THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
PENNSYLVANIA; JOSHUA D. SHAPIRO, THE PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY
GENERAL; LAWRENCE S. KRASNER, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF
PHILADELPHIA; OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA COUNTY;
GOMEZ, PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT UNIT, THE OFFICE OF THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2-22-cv-04838 )
District Judge: Honorable Gene E. K. Pratter
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 11, 2024
Before: BIBAS, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 12, 2024)
___________
OPINION*
___________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 6 --

2
PER CURIAM
Hayriye Gok, proceeding pro se, appeals a District Court order denying her motion
to reconsider the denial of leave to amend her complaint, and orders denying her
amended motion to reconsider the denial of special relief and motions related thereto.
We will affirm the latter orders, albeit on different grounds than the District Court. We
will dismiss the remainder of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Gok filed a complaint against the United States, the Department of Justice, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of the Pennsylvania Attorney General, the
Office of the District Attorney of Philadelphia, and federal, state, and city officials. Gok
averred that defendants Joshua Shapiro, then the Pennsylvania Attorney General, and
Lawrence Krasner, the Philadelphia District Attorney, conspired with Charles Koch and
“kidnapped” her child. She alleged that Shapiro and Krasner sought to obstruct an
investigation into her reports of child abuse, apparently by her child’s father. They
allegedly bribed the Philadelphia Family Court to obtain a fraudulent custody order
awarding custody to her child’s father. Gok was also ordered to pay child support.
Gok averred that she has not received a response to her child abuse complaints,
that the DOJ and FBI investigated the matter but have not advised her of the results, and
that Shapiro and others killed her brother in order to obstruct the investigation. She also
alleged that the defendants improperly allowed a party in a prior suit she had filed to
bring a private criminal complaint against her that went to mediation. Gok claimed

-- 2 of 6 --

3
violations of her constitutional rights, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and state criminal
statutes. She sought damages and injunctive relief.
In orders entered on February 10, 2023, the District Court denied motions by Gok
for leave to file an amended complaint and for special relief. Gok moved for
reconsideration of the denial of the motion for special relief. She reiterated that her child
was kidnapped in order to obstruct her complaints and alleged that President Biden was
involved. She sought an order returning custody of her child to her, a restraining order to
protect her and her child, and an order cancelling the custody and support orders. Gok
attached exhibits to her amended motion, including an emergency petition filed by her
child’s father in state court alleging that Gok was not complying with their joint custody
order, a May 12, 2022, temporary custody order awarding sole custody to Gok’s child’s
father, and a February 10, 2023, final support order. Gok also filed motions to reconsider
the denial of leave to amend her complaint and additional motions for leave to amend.
On June 22, 2023, the District Court denied reconsideration and leave to amend.1
In separate orders issued the same day, it denied her amended motion to reconsider the
denial of special relief, a motion to cease support payments pending a final custody order,
and motions to expedite a decision. The District Court had initially denied Gok’s motion
for special relief under the Rooker-Feldman2 doctrine. On reconsideration, it declined to
1 After issuance of the February 10, 2023, orders, Gok filed 12 motions for
reconsideration and for leave to amend. The District Court denied the most recent
motion and deemed the prior motions moot.
2 Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

-- 3 of 6 --

4
apply Rooker-Feldman and ruled that it would abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.
37 (1971). Gok now appeals the June 22, 2023, orders.
We lack jurisdiction to the extent Gok appeals the order denying leave to amend
the complaint and the related motion for reconsideration. This order is not immediately
appealable as the District Court has yet to enter a final decision in Gok’s case under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. See In re Kelly, 876 F.2d 14, 15 (3d Cir. 1989) (stating the denial of
leave to amend is not a final order). A motion to dismiss Gok’s original complaint
remains pending. We have jurisdiction, however, to review the orders related to the
denial of special relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (conferring jurisdiction over appeals
of interlocutory orders refusing injunctions). We review the denial of injunctive relief for
abuse of discretion; our review of legal conclusions is de novo. See Siemens USA
Holdings, Inc. v. Geisenberger, 17 F.4th 393, 407 n.19 (3d Cir. 2021).
Courts may abstain from exercising jurisdiction only when “exceptional
circumstances” justify the refusal to decide a case in deference to the States. Sprint
Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 78 (2013). Exceptional circumstances exist in
three types of cases: ongoing state criminal prosecutions, civil enforcement proceedings,
and “‘civil proceedings involving certain orders . . . uniquely in furtherance of the state
courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions.’” Id. (citations omitted). If a case falls
in one of these categories, a court considers additional factors under Middlesex County

-- 4 of 6 --

5
Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Association, 457 U.S. 423 (1982). Sprint, 571
U.S. at 81.
On appeal, Gok asserts that the Middlesex factors are inapplicable or that an
exception to abstention applies. See Appellant’s Brief at 334-37. We do not reach these
arguments, however, because an exceptional circumstance does not exist. Gok’s motions
involve an alleged fraudulent custody order, not an ongoing state criminal prosecution or
civil enforcement proceeding. Although the District Court ruled that custody proceedings
fall into the third category, the custody and support orders at issue are not “uniquely in
furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions.” Malhan v.
Sec’y U.S. Dep’t of State, 938 F.3d 453, 463 (3d Cir. 2019). In Malhan, we explained
that judicial orders related to support were the “output of [judicial] functions,” not orders
that “ensure that family courts can perform their functions.” Id. Rather, the Supreme
Court has applied the third category to cases involving “‘challenges to the processes by
which the State compels compliance with the judgments of its courts.’” Smith & Wesson
Brands, Inc. v. Att’y Gen. of New Jersey, 27 F.4th 886, 894 (3d Cir. 2022) (citation
omitted).3
We will, however, affirm the District Court’s order denying Gok’s amended
motion to reconsider the denial of special relief and related motions on other grounds.
3 To the extent the District Court relied on Anthony v. Council, 316 F.3d 412 (3d Cir.
2003), Sprint abrogated that decision. Malhan, 938 F.3d at 462 n.4. In addition, we
agree with Gok to the extent she contends that Rooker-Feldman did not deprive the
District Court of jurisdiction. See id. at 460-61; Great W. Mining & Min. Co. v. Fox
Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 167 (3d Cir. 2010).

-- 5 of 6 --

6
See TD Bank N.A. v. Hill, 928 F.3d 259, 270 (3d Cir. 2019) (noting we may affirm on
any basis supported by the record). In order to obtain preliminary injunctive relief, Gok
was required to show, among other things, that she was reasonably likely to succeed on
the merits of her claims. Siemens USA Holdings, 17 F.4th at 410 n.23. Her motions
alleging fraud and retaliation in her custody and support proceedings fall far short of
satisfying this standard. In so holding, we take no position on whether Gok’s complaint
states a claim for relief. See Singer Mgmt. Consultants, Inc. v. Milgram, 650 F.3d 223,
229 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc) (distinguishing a ruling on an injunction from a resolution of
the merits).
Accordingly, we will affirm the June 22, 2023, orders of the District Court related
to the denial of special relief. We will dismiss the remainder of the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.4
4 Appellant’s motion to file a brief exceeding the page limit is granted. Her motion to file
under seal the documents received by the Court on November 3, 2023, is granted. All
other pending motions are denied.

-- 6 of 6 --