Those crank cases where someone with a family law or small-claims dispute sues everyone involved, including the judge, usually don't get publicized. This one, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, appeared in Virginia Lawyers Weekly, probably because in disposing of the case, the court ruled on a couple legal issues that it thought not everyone might be clear on.
Plaintiff lost a custody case with his ex-wife and claimed that that result, and various Virginia laws on child custody, and things that various Virginia judges had done, were unconstitutional. He also sued on behalf of his two children as co-plaintiffs, making a habeas corpus claim that they were being held in the mother's custody due to an unconstitutional decision. He then conceded that the federal law does not allow habeas relief in this situation, but he asks to amend his complaint to pursue a habeas claim under state law, and to have the federal court exercise "supplemental jurisdiction" over the state law claim since it was already hearing his federal case. The court declined to exercise such jurisdiction over the state law claims. It granted a motion "to dismiss or abstain" for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but did so without prejudice.
The plaintiff also claimed that the mother's new husband should not be allowed to serve as her lawyer in the federal case. The court denied his motion. It said that on the question of whether the husband could be both a lawyer and a witness, it did not have to decide that issue because there was not going to be a trial. Barrett v. Minor (USDC W.D.Va. 8-31-15).