AMY BERMAN JACKSON, United States District Judge.
On September 21, 2017, pro se plaintiff Rapheal Proctor filed this lawsuit against the District of Columbia agency he referred to as "Title 4-D Child Support Enforcement Agency,"
Plaintiff bases his claim on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and he alleges that the child support order violates his constitutional right to due process, his right to equal protection under the law, and his right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself. Compl. at 1-3, 6, 8 ("I'm filling [sic] this complaint resulting from child support hearing where my constitutional rights have been violated I've been jailed and force[d] to enter into a contract."). He also seems to bring a defamation claim against the agency. Id. at 9-10 (defining "defamation" and alleging that he has "been stalked[,] labeled an obligor, and dead beat dad which are false statements, my property and my public image has been tarnished and vandalized ... as a result of the child support enforcement agencies [sic] tactics to enforce an unfair and bias[ed] contract"). In his complaint, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief "to put a stop to ongoing income with holdings [sic] and repeated conduct that violates [his] rights," as well as $75,000 dollars in damages. Id. at 10.
Pending before the Court are two motions to dismiss: one filed by defendant Wills on October 16, 2017, and one filed on November 22, 2017 by defendants CSSD and Rhodes. Wills Mot.; Defs.' Mot.; Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. [Dkt. # 12] ("Defs.' Mem."). Defendant Wills argues that the case against him should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim because the complaint "lacks any allegations
The Court informed plaintiff on November 2, 2017, and again on November 22, 2017, that if he did not file a timely response to either motion to dismiss, the Court would treat the motions as conceded and dismiss the case. Order [Dkt. # 11]; Order [Dkt. # 13]. Plaintiff filed a single opposition on November 27, 2017, Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 14] ("Pl.'s Opp."), and both defendants replied. Defs.' Reply in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. [Dkt. # 15] ("Defs.' Reply"); Donald Wills Reply in Supp. of Wills Mot. [Dkt. # 16] ("Wills Reply").
Because the Court cannot hear the case under the domestic relations exception to federal court jurisdiction as well as under the Younger abstention doctrine, and the Magistrate Judge is absolutely immune, the Court will grant defendants' motions and dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff is a party to an ongoing child support proceeding in D.C. Superior Court. See Ex. 1 to Defs.' Mot. [Dkt. # 12-1] ("Superior Court Docket").
Plaintiff alleges that he was held in contempt of court by Magistrate Judge Melendez, and that he was then jailed and "forced to enter into a contract with the child support enforcement program via [a] [c]ourt ordered DNA test which [he] didn't consent to." Compl. at 3. After the DNA test, plaintiff claims that CSSD issued an income withholding order, without a judicial signature, to his employer defendant Wills. Id. The complaint alleges that the order is "fraudulent" because it requires him to pay $1,080.00 per month "without [having] inquir[ed] [into his] ability to pay." Id.
Despite his alleged attempts to put a stop to the withholding order "via email and faxes and trips delivering a deprivation of rights warning to the child support enforcement agency," plaintiff claims that defendant Wills continues "to send [his] compensation for [his] labor to the wage with holding [sic] unit at the child support collection agency." Compl. at 3. Further, plaintiff alleges that he has been falsely
In evaluating a motion to dismiss under either Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6), the Court must "treat the complaint's factual allegations as true and must grant plaintiff `the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.'" Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted), quoting Schuler v. United States, 617 F.2d 605, 608 (D.C. Cir. 1979); see also Am. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 642 F.3d 1137, 1139 (D.C. Cir. 2011), quoting Thomas v. Principi, 394 F.3d 970, 972 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Nevertheless, the Court need not accept inferences drawn by the plaintiff if those inferences are unsupported by facts alleged in the complaint, nor must the Court accept plaintiff's legal conclusions. Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); Shekoyan v. Sibley Int'l Corp., 217 F.Supp.2d 59, 63 (D.D.C. 2002). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and the law presumes that "a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994); see also Gen. Motors Corp. v. EPA, 363 F.3d 442, 448 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ("As a court of limited jurisdiction, we begin, and end, with an examination of our jurisdiction."). "[B]ecause subject-matter jurisdiction is `an Art[icle] III as well as a statutory requirement ... no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court.'" Akinseye v. District of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2003), quoting Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982).
When considering a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, unlike when deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court "is not limited to the allegations of the complaint." Hohri v. United States, 782 F.2d 227, 241 (D.C. Cir. 1986), vacated on other grounds, 482 U.S. 64, 107 S.Ct. 2246, 96 L.Ed.2d 51 (1987). Rather, "a court may consider such materials outside the pleadings as it deems appropriate to resolve the question [of] whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case." Scolaro v. D.C. Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 104 F.Supp.2d 18, 22 (D.D.C. 2000), citing Herbert v. Nat'l Acad. of Scis., 974 F.2d 192, 197 (D.C. Cir. 1992); see also Jerome Stevens Pharms., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249, 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
"To survive a [Rule 12(b)(6)] motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). In Iqbal, the Supreme Court reiterated the two principles underlying its decision in Twombly: "First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions," and
A claim is facially plausible when the pleaded factual content "allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955. "The plausibility standard is not akin to a `probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id., quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955. A pleading must offer more than "labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action," id., quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, and "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id., citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955.
When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court is bound to construe a complaint liberally in the plaintiff's favor, and it should grant the plaintiff "the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged." Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994), citing Schuler, 617 F.2d at 608. Where the action is brought by a pro se plaintiff, a district court has an obligation "to consider his filings as a whole before dismissing a complaint," Schnitzler v. United States, 761 F.3d 33, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2014), citing Richardson v. United States, 193 F.3d 545, 548 (D.C. Cir. 1999), because such complaints are held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Nevertheless, the Court need not accept inferences drawn by the plaintiff if those inferences are unsupported by facts alleged in the complaint, nor must the Court accept plaintiff's legal conclusions. See Kowal, 16 F.3d at 1276. In ruling upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a court may ordinarily consider only "the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference in the complaint, and matters about which the Court may take judicial notice." Gustave-Schmidt v. Chao, 226 F.Supp.2d 191, 196 (D.D.C. 2002), citing EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch., 117 F.3d 621, 624-25 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff claims that his rights to due process, equal protection, and against self-incrimination under the Constitution
Under the domestic relations exception, federal courts do not have the "power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees," Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703, 112 S.Ct. 2206, 119 L.Ed.2d 468 (1992), or to determine child support obligations. Bennett v. Bennett, 682 F.2d 1039, 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (explaining that the domestic relationship exception divests a federal court of jurisdiction over "grant[ing] a divorce, determin[ing] alimony or support obligations, or resolv[ing] parental conflicts over the custody of their children"). That is because the "whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States." Ankenbrandt, 504 U.S. at 703, 112 S.Ct. 2206, citing In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890). Accordingly, the Court must dismiss any claims seeking to enjoin or modify enforcement of the child support order. See Delaney v. District of Columbia, 659 F.Supp.2d 185, 193 (D.D.C. 2009) (dismissing claims seeking to effect child support orders for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). Therefore, the section 1983 claim against defendants will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief "to put a stop to ongoing income with holdings [sic] and repeated conduct that violates [his] rights." Compl. at 10. Defendants maintain that the Court is required to abstain from interfering with an ongoing proceeding in Superior Court under the Younger doctrine. Defs.' Mem. at 7-8. The Court agrees.
Putting aside the merits of plaintiff's section 1983 claim, the Younger abstention doctrine requires that "except under special circumstances," a federal court should not "enjoin pending state proceedings." Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971); see Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 603-04, 95 S.Ct. 1200, 43 L.Ed.2d 482 (1975) (extending Younger to pending civil state court proceedings). The District of Columbia is considered a state for Younger purposes. JMM Corp. v. District of Columbia, 378 F.3d 1117, 1125 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Younger doctrine, based upon principles of equity and comity, 401 U.S. at 43-44, 91 S.Ct. 746, precludes federal intervention
Plaintiff's suit meets the criteria for Younger abstention. First, plaintiff is subject to an ongoing child support order, which is to be monitored by the D.C. Superior Court, and is considered "an open case that does not terminate until the child support order is finally discharged." Delaney, 659 F.Supp.2d at 194, citing Dixon v. Kuhn, 257 F. App'x 553 (3d Cir. 2007); see also Whitehead, 892 F.Supp.2d at 318 (using the Younger doctrine to dismiss the plaintiff's claims that the garnishment of his wages to pay an ongoing child support order was unlawful). Second, states have a recognized interest in "ordering and enforcing child support obligations." Delaney, 659 F.Supp.2d at 194 (citation omitted); see also Ankenbrandt, 504 U.S. at 703-04, 112 S.Ct. 2206 (recognizing that "state courts are more eminently suited to work on" divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees "than are federal courts, which lack the close association with state and local government organizations dedicated to handling issues that arise out of conflicts over" those subjects). Third, plaintiff has an adequate opportunity to raise his constitutional claims in Superior Court.
Finally, no extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant the relief plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff does not allege that defendants acted in bad faith or in a harassing manner, nor does he claim that Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, see 42 U.S.C. § 651 et seq., which supplies the enforcement mechanism for child support obligations, is "flagrantly unconstitutional."
Therefore, to the extent the complaint asks the Court to intervene in the pending D.C. Superior Court matter, the Court will not do so, and the section 1983 claim will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motions to dismiss will be granted.
A separate order will issue.
CSSD argues that the section 1983 claim against it should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because it is non sui juris and it is therefore not a proper party. Defs.' Mem. at 8. The Court agrees. "It is well-settled that a department or agency of the District of Columbia cannot sue or be sued in its own name in the absence of a statutory provision to that effect." Whitehead v. D.C. Child Support Servs. Div., 892 F.Supp.2d 315, 319 (D.D.C. 2012) (dismissing constitutional claims against CSSD because CSSD is non sui juris); see Braxton v. Nat'l Capital Hous. Auth., 396 A.2d 215, 216 (D.C. 1978) ("Cases in this jurisdiction have consistently found that bodies within the District of Columbia government are not suable as separate entities."). Moreover, even if the Court substituted the District of Columbia as a proper defendant, the section 1983 claim against it would still be dismissed because plaintiff's complaint is completely devoid of any allegations of a municipal policy or custom that caused his injury. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91, 694-95, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Baker v. District of Columbia, 326 F.3d 1302, 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2003). In his opposition, plaintiff maintains that CSSD, Rhodes, and Magistrate Judge Melendez have an unconstitutional "municipal policy" of "hold[ing] [e]x [p]arte conferences, hearings, or [o]rders denying parental rights or personal liberties." Pl.'s Opp. at 4. While the Court must "consider [plaintiff's] filings as a whole before dismissing a complaint," Schnitzler, 761 F.3d at 38 (citation omitted), these allegations fall short of alleging an "`affirmative link,' such that a municipal policy was the `moving force' behind the constitutional violation." Baker, 326 F.3d at 1306 (citations omitted).
Further, defendants argue that, to the extent Rhodes is sued in her official capacity under section 1983, the claim must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) as duplicative. Defs.' Mem. at 10. Because "[a] section 1983 suit for damages against municipal officials in their official capacities is ... equivalent to a suit against the municipality itself," Atchinson v. District of Columbia, 73 F.3d 418, 424 (D.C. Cir. 1996), the Court concludes that this is another independent grounds to dismiss this claim against defendant Rhodes.
Finally, while the Office of the Attorney General acknowledges that it does not represent Magistrate Judge Melendez, it argues that "District law does not support [p]laintiff's claim against [her] because she has absolute immunity for any actions taken in her judicial capacity." Defs.' Mot. at 1 n.1; Defs.' Mem. at 10-11. Defendant Melendez has not entered an appearance in this case, and it is unclear if she has been properly served. See Aff. of Mailing [Dkt. # 3]. But the law is clear that judges are entitled to absolute immunity from lawsuits that arise out of the performance of judicial functions. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225-28, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988). Plaintiff's claim against Magistrate Judge Melendez relates to the allegedly unlawful DNA test and the issuance of the child support order, matters undertaken by the Magistrate Judge in her judicial capacity. Therefore, any claim against her related to this conduct is barred.
