A federal lawsuit alleges that state authority was deliberately misused to prevent a parent from fairly adjudicating his rights regarding the custody of his child. The complaint claims that instead of resolving disputes through hearings and evidence, judicial power was used to coerce outcomes and punish resistance.
Matthew A. Thompson filed the complaint on March 19, 2026 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against multiple defendants including Lisa I. Swenski (a judge), Paul M. Kocsis (a magistrate), Steven K. Blake (a magistrate), Terrence R. Butler (a magistrate), Lindsay K. Nickolls (guardian ad litem), The Nickolls Law Firm LLC, Christopher P. Rewak (guardian ad litem), Rewak Law LLC, Anthony R. Pecora (attorney), Douglas R. Henry (attorney), O’Toole McLaughlin Dooley & Pecora Co., LPA (now Gembala McLaughlin & Pecora Co., LPA), Scott R. Sylkatis (attorney), Sylkatis Law LLC, Deborah A. Koricke (psychologist), Center for Effective Living Inc., and Yuliia Thompson.
According to the filing, the dispute began in late 2019 when concerns arose that the minor child could be permanently removed from the United States following an interview by Department of Homeland Security investigators with Thompson regarding allegations about his mental health. The plaintiff asserts that these events led defendants to create and reinforce a narrative portraying him as unstable in order to influence custody proceedings.
The complaint outlines that beginning in late 2019, after private efforts failed to avoid formal adjudication, defendants repeatedly invoked judicial power not to resolve disputes but rather “to prevent those disputes from being adjudicated at all.” It is alleged that court authority was used as leverage “to coerce outcomes, punish resistance, and preserve the narrative portraying Plaintiff as unstable.” Thompson claims he was denied contact with his child without proper hearings until he agreed to a custody arrangement demanded by defendants.
Thompson further reports that when he attempted to defend himself pro se in later proceedings and insisted on adjudication of legal issues—especially after reporting defendants’ conduct to local authorities in 2022—he faced escalating use of state power including contempt proceedings lacking constitutional safeguards and incarceration for alleged noncompliance with orders issued without hearings.
The complaint states: “At no point was Plaintiff afforded a neutral forum in which to litigate his parental rights.” It also alleges that defendant Yuliia Thompson benefitted materially from these actions through custody litigation tactics described as manufacturing or exploiting false narratives.
Thompson argues that these actions violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments by systematically eliminating fair adjudication itself: “Plaintiff was repeatedly denied the opportunity to litigate through evidence, cross-examination, and judicial findings… Defendants deprived Plaintiff of rights secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” He brings this action under Title 42 Section 1983 seeking declaratory relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and prospective relief sufficient “to halt ongoing misuse of state authority” and restore constitutional protections.
The lawsuit details several incidents where interim custody agreements were allegedly extracted under coercion without contested hearings; removal of his child occurred without evidentiary determination; and final custody arrangements were reached outside any proper adjudicative process before being incorporated into divorce decrees without evidentiary hearings or resolution of factual disputes.
Thompson also challenges appointments of guardians ad litem during both divorce and post-decree periods as depriving him of due process beyond what Ohio law authorizes when at least one fit parent exists: “The orders appointing Defendants Nickolls and Rewak authorized many actions for which authority only existed upon appointment under R.C. 2151.281,” despite no such basis existing here.
In addition to alleging conspiracy among judicial officers, attorneys representing both parties—including those who previously represented Thompson—and other professionals acting jointly under color of state law or through coordinated private action are accused of participating in coercive conduct designed to suppress fair process.
Recent events cited include motions filed by opposing counsel on March 16, 2026 requesting orders prohibiting Thompson from presenting evidence or testimony regarding parenting skills or mental health at trial; seeking default judgment terminating shared parenting; imposing supervised visitation; ordering payment of attorney’s fees; and making negative findings about Thompson’s mental health—all described as attempts “to completely foreclose adjudication” on critical issues affecting parental rights.
The plaintiff seeks declaratory judgments clarifying constitutional violations have occurred; compensatory damages for injuries suffered; punitive damages against individual actors; injunctive relief preventing further similar conduct; restoration of procedural protections in future proceedings; costs; attorney’s fees if applicable; and any other relief deemed just by the court.
Attorneys named as defendants include Anthony R. Pecora, Douglas R. Henry, Scott R. Sylkatis, Lindsay K. Nickolls (as guardian ad litem via The Nickolls Law Firm LLC), Christopher P. Rewak (as guardian ad litem via Rewak Law LLC). Judge Fleming is listed on the docket cover sheet but is not referenced within the body text provided above as presiding over specific rulings described herein. The case ID is 1:26-cv-00652-CEF.
Source: 126cv00652_Thompson_v_Swenski_Complaint_Northern_District_Ohio.pdf
