Lane v. Gorup et al

Filing 18

* VACATED * ORDER adopting in part 15 Report and Recommendations. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 1/17/2023. (ANM, COURT STAFF) Modified on 1/18/2023 to indicate vacated per order at Docket 19. (ANM, COURT STAFF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

DOUGLAS N. LANE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHELSEA GORUP et al.,

Case No. 3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR

Defendants.

ORDER RE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Before the Court are the following filings: at Docket 12 is Douglas N. Lane’s
Motion to Amend Amended Complaint, at Docket 13 is a Second Amended
Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and at Docket 14 is a
Motion to Appoint Counsel.

These matters were referred to the Honorable

Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 15 Judge Reardon issued a Report
and Recommendation to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Without Prejudice in which
he recommended this action be dismissed without prejudice and that all pending
motions be denied as moot.

Mr. Lane filed objections to the Report and

Recommendation at Docket 16.
The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That
statute provides that a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”1 A court is
to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”2 However, §
636(b)(1) does not “require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to
those findings.”3
Based on the Court’s review of the Report and Recommendation and the
record as a whole, the Court finds as follows:
The Court ADOPTS Section I of the report (Second Amended Complaint),
as to which no objection was made.
Section II addressed whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The magistrate judge concluded that
Mr. Lane’s Second Amended Complaint was a de facto appeal of a state court
judgment, and accordingly, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precluded this Court
from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over this suit. The magistrate judge
further recommend dismissal of the action, because “further amendment of
Plaintiff’s Complaint would not cure the deficiencies and would be futile.”4

1

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

2

Id.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
3

4

Docket 15 at 6-7.

Case No. 3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR, Lane v. Gorup et al.
Order re Report and Recommendation to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Without Prejudice
Page 2 of 6

Mr. Lane objects to this portion of the report. First, Mr. Lane contends that
the magistrate judge incorrectly characterized the child support order as a state
court order rather than a state administrative order. Second, Mr. Lane asserts he
did not receive adequate notice of his rights regarding the entry of

the

administrative support order, which created arrearages with criminal implications.
Third, Mr. Lane maintained the “Administration”—which this Court takes to mean
the Child Support Services Division (CSSD) under the Alaska Department of
Revenue—“lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction to rule on a criminal matter.”5
The Court has reviewed de novo Section II of the Report and
Recommendation. The Court agrees with Mr. Lane that the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine is inapplicable here because the child support order was issued by an
administrative agency rather than a state court,6 such that no state court decision
is at issue here. Accordingly, Mr. Lane’s objection that the child support order was
incorrectly characterized as a state court order is SUSTAINED and the Court
declines to adopt Section II of the Report and Recommendation.
As to Mr. Lane’s assertions that he did not receive adequate notice of his
rights, the Court finds that Mr. Lane has not plausibly alleged a violation of his right
to procedural due process. “Due process requires notice that gives an agency’s

5

Docket 16 at 1-2.

Docket 13-1 at 2; Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Maryland, 535 U.S. 635, 644
n.3 (2002) (“The [Rooker-Feldman] doctrine has no application to judicial review of executive
action, including determinations made by a state administrative agency.”).
6

Case No. 3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR, Lane v. Gorup et al.
Order re Report and Recommendation to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Without Prejudice
Page 3 of 6

reason for its action in sufficient detail that the affected party can prepare a
responsive defense.”7 “The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the
opportunity to be heard.”8 The child support order included several attachments,
one of which was the Child Support Guidelines Worksheet demonstrating how the
CSSD calculated Mr. Lane’s support obligation.9 The Court finds this attachment
to constitute notice of the CSSD’s reason for its action in sufficient detail that Mr.
Lane could have prepared a responsive defense.
Furthermore, the first page of the child support order issued to Mr. Lane
included a notice stating he had a right to challenge the administrative order by
requesting an administrative review within 30 days, and that the order would only
become effective if no request for review was received.10 Another attachment to
the order was a two-page document explaining the order and Mr. Lane’s options
to accept or contest the order.11 The document included instructions on how to
request an administrative review and what documents to include with the request.12

Barnes v. Healy, 980 F.2d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 26768 (1970)).
7

8

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 (1970).

9

Docket 13-1 at 8, 10-11.

10

Docket 13-1 at 2.

Docket 13-1 at 13-14. The explanation stated, in bold: “REMEMBER, failure to respond to this
order will result in the order becoming a legal and binding order by default. You must request an
Administrative Review within 30 days of receiving this order if the enclosed order does not reflect
your financial circumstances.”
11

12

Docket 13-1 at 13-14.

Case No. 3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR, Lane v. Gorup et al.
Order re Report and Recommendation to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Without Prejudice
Page 4 of 6

This record demonstrates that CSSD provided Mr. Lane an opportunity to be heard
and thereby accorded him with due process of law.13 And, while the nonpayment
of support can result in a criminal prosecution, with all the attendant rights then
accorded to a criminal defendant, the administrative order entered by the CSSD is
not a criminal conviction.
As a final matter, the Court finds that Mr. Lane’s claims are barred by the
statute of limitations. Federal constitutional claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 must
be brought within the timeframe required by the applicable state statute of
limitations for personal injury actions.14 Alaska’s statute of limitations for personal
injury actions is two years.15 Mr. Lane initiated the instant action in May 2022,
almost 10 years after the administrative support order in question was issued in
August 2012.16 Accordingly, Mr. Lane’s remaining objections are OVERRULED.
The Court further finds that according Mr. Lane an additional opportunity to
file an amended complaint would be futile. Therefore, this action will be dismissed
and this action terminated without further leave to amend.

Further, by law, if Mr. Lane was dissatisfied with the results of the Administrative Review, he
had a right to an administrative hearing, and, if dissatisfied with the results of that hearing, he had
the right to appeal the determination to the Alaska Superior Court, and then to the Alaska Supreme
Court. See AS 25.27.170; 25.27.210.
13

14

Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 261-62 (1985).

15

AS § 09.10.070.

16

Docket 13-1 at 2.

Case No. 3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR, Lane v. Gorup et al.
Order re Report and Recommendation to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Without Prejudice
Page 5 of 6

For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts those portions of the Report
and Recommendation to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Without Prejudice as set
forth above, and IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
DATED this 17th day of January, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR, Lane v. Gorup et al.
Order re Report and Recommendation to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Without Prejudice
Page 6 of 6