Henry v. State of Alaska Department of Revenue Child Support Services Division et al

Filing 25

ORDER (1) DISMISSING STATE OF ALASKA AS A DEFENDANT AND (2) STAYING THE CLAIMS AGAINST THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Dkt. Nos. 16 & 23). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 12/1/2011. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/1/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ahm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

RONALD HENRY,
Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

15
16
17
18
19

Case No.: C 11-03255 JSC
ORDER (1) DISMISSING STATE OF
ALASKA AS A DEFENDANT AND (2)
STAYING THE CLAIMS AGAINST
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Dkt.
Nos. 16, 23)

STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE CHILD SUPPORT
SERVICES DIVISION, et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against the State of Alaska Department

20

of Revenue Child Support Services Division, the State of California Department of Child

21

Support Services, the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of

22

Child Support Enforcement, and the United States Department of State. Plaintiff alleged that

23

he owes approximately $50,000 in child support payments for a child born in Alaska who is

24

now over the age of 18. His complaint appeared to make two claims: (1) a constitutional

25

challenge to a federal law that prohibits the issuance of passports to persons in arrears on child

26

support payments, and (2) a constitutional challenge to the State of California’s suspension of

27

Plaintiff’s commercial drivers license as a result of his failure to make child support payments

28

as ordered by the Alaska Superior Court.

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in

2

forma pauperis but dismissed his complaint with leave to amend. With respect to his passport

3

claim, the Court held that Plaintiff’s allegations failed to establish standing because he

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

admitted that he had not applied for a passport and therefore had not been denied a passport.
As for the claim against the State of California, the Court held that the complaint was unclear
as to what conduct by California Plaintiff challenges and the basis for the challenge. For
example, while his complaint alluded to a denial of a California commercial drivers license,
the complaint did not allege that he had applied for and been denied such a license. He also
failed to identify the constitutional provision, if any, he contends is violated by California’s
alleged conduct. Finally, with respect to the State of Alaska as a defendant, the Court held,
again, that the complaint was unclear as to the conduct Plaintiff is challenging: “Plaintiff must
specifically identify the conduct, and where it occurred, and any state statutes that he
challenges.” (Dkt. No. 7.) The Court also held that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to support an
inference that this Court has personal jurisdiction over the State of Alaska.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s Order: a first
amended complaint (Dkt. No. 16) along with corrections and a “supplement” (Dkt. No. 23).
Plaintiff served the first amended complaint on the State of California, and the Court granted
the State’s request for an extension of time, until December 6, 2011, to respond to the
amended complaint.
Plaintiff’s “supplement” also includes a purported removal of a state court proceeding
in Alaska Superior Court, Third Judicial District at Anchorage, Case No. 3 AN-04-3462, to
this Court, although no removal was docketed separately. (Dkt. No. 24 at 6-7.) In that state
proceeding, the Attorney General of the State of Alaska has moved to vacate orders issued by
the Alaska state court on 3/17/2004, 5/10/2004, 9/16/2004 and 3/13/2006 directing the
Plaintiff here, Ronald Henry, to pay child support. The Attorney General contends the orders

25

“are void because the State of California has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction (CEJ) over the

26

issue of support for the child.” (Dkt. No. 24 at 12.)

27
28

2

DISCUSSION

1
2

A. The Removal of the Alaska State Court Proceeding Is Improper

3

Plaintiff’s purported removal of the Alaska child support proceeding to this California

4

federal district court is improper. To properly remove a case from state court, the removing

5

party must file the removal papers in the federal court for the district in which the state action

6

is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Accordingly, to the extent the state court proceeding was, in

7

fact, removed, it is hereby remanded back to the Alaska Superior Court.
The gravamen of Plaintiff’s complaint is that because his son is no longer a minor it is

10

unconstitutional to require Plaintiff to suffer any consequences from his failure to pay his past

11
Northern District of California

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

9

United States District Court

8

child support obligations. In light of Plaintiff’s supplement to his amended complaint (Dkt.

12

No. 23), three claims of unconstitutional conduct appear to remain against the California

13

Department of Child Support Services (“Cal. DCSS”) and the Alaska Child Support Services

14

Division (“Alaska CSSD”).1 First, Plaintiff alleges that Cal. DCSS and Alaska CSSD

15

maintain his name on a list of child support obligors, which subjects Plaintiff to a federal law

16

that prohibits the issuance of passports to persons who are in arrears on child support

17

payments. See 42 U.S.C. ' 652(k). Second, he appears to challenge the State of California

18

denying him a California commercial drivers license based on Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy

19

orders of the Alaska state court requiring him to pay child support. Third, he challenges

20

Alaska CSSD “independently and supplementally [sic] through its agent DCSS” reporting his

21

delinquent child support payment status to various entities, including credit agencies and the

22

Secretary of the Treasury. (Dkt. No. 23 at 3.)
C. The State of Alaska Must Be Dismissed

23

As the Court previously ruled in its initial order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff

24
25

has the burden to establish that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Alaska. Scott v.

26

Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir.1986). The Court previously advised Plaintiff that any

27

amended complaint should “allege sufficient facts to make a preliminary showing that this

28

Plaintiff’s supplement dismissed all claims against the federal government. (Dkt. No. 23 at
2.)
1

3

1

California court has personal jurisdiction of the State of Alaska.” (Dkt. No. 7.) Plaintiff’s

2

amended complaint fails to do so.

3

APersonal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant is appropriate if the relevant

4

state’s long arm-statute permits the assertion of jurisdiction without violating federal due

5

process.@ Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800-01 (9th Cir. 2004).

6

Because California=s long arm statute is co-extensive with federal due process requirements,

7

the jurisdictional analyses under California law and federal due process are the same. Id. at

8

801. The Due Process Clause requires that nonresident defendants such as the State of Alaska

9

have certain Aminimum contacts@ with the forum state, Asuch that the exercise of personal

Northern District of California

jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.@ Int=l Shoe

11
United States District Court

10

Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).

12

The Ninth Circuit has articulated a three-part test to determine whether a party has

13

sufficient minimum contacts to be susceptible to specific personal jurisdiction: (1) the

14

non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction

15

in the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself

16

of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and

17

protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the

18

defendant's forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair

19

play and substantial justice, i.e., it must be reasonable. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802

20

(quoting Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir.1987)).

21

The crux of Plaintiff’s claims against the Alaska CSSD is that because Plaintiff has not

22

satisfied the Alaska Superior Court’s orders regarding the payment of child support, Plaintiff

23

has suffered a variety of harms, from passport denial to federal tax and paycheck withholding

24

to negative credit scores and denial of a commercial drivers license. Plaintiff, however, has

25

still failed to allege facts—as opposed to conclusions—that demonstrate a prima facie

26

showing that this Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Alaska. If Plaintiff wishes to

27

challenge Alaska’s orders, he must do so in Alaska. Moreover, according to the documents

28

submitted by Plaintiff and discussed above, the Alaska Attorney General has moved to vacate

4

1

the Alaska child support orders. Accordingly, the claims against the State of Alaska are

2

dismissed.

3
4

D. The Claims Against California
Plaintiff’s claim against California arises from the State’s 2008 suspension of his

5

commercial drivers license as a result of his failure to pay child support as ordered by the

6

Alaska courts. Plaintiff concedes that California has suspended his commercial license

7

pursuant to California Family Code section 17520 and “a federal statute which authorizes the

8

states to employ license suspension as a means to compel compliance with a child support

9

order.” (Dkt. No. 16 at 3); See 42 USC § 666(a). Plaintiff nonetheless contends that

Northern District of California

California’s conduct is unconstitutional because the Alaska child support orders became moot

11
United States District Court

10

when his son turned 18 in June 2008. He appears to contend that the State (and federal

12

government) have no legitimate interest in pursuing delinquent child support payments once a

13

child reaches the age of majority because the child is no longer a dependent and therefore the

14

restriction of Plaintiff’s license (along with other consequences) violates substantive due

15

process.

16

Plaintiff’s theory is novel and defies common sense. If a parent, such as Plaintiff,

17

could be absolved of all delinquent child support payments once a child turned 18, then the

18

parent would have every incentive to delay and obstruct the payment of any benefits until the

19

child turned 18. In other words, requiring a parent to satisfy past child support orders after the

20

child turns 18 is completely consistent with Congress’s stated intent to encourage parents to

21

comply with their child support obligations while the child is a dependent. It is thus

22

unsurprising that the Court has not been able to find a single case, and Plaintiff cites none, that

23

supports his novel argument.

24

In any event, the State of Alaska’s child support orders may become moot in light of

25

the Alaska Attorney General’s recent motion to vacate the orders. If the motion is granted,

26

Plaintiff’s claims in this action may become moot as there will be no Alaska support orders

27

for California or Alaska to enforce. In light of this development, the State of California

28

need not respond to the Amended Complaint by December 6, 2011. Instead, the parties

5

1

shall appear for a case management conference on February 2, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. in

2

Courtroom F at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA to discuss the status of the

3

Alaska child support orders and whether Plaintiff’s claims are moot.
CONCLUSION

4

State of Alaska, the Alaska defendant is dismissed. Plaintiff, himself, dismissed the federal

7

defendants. In light of Plaintiff’s submission of documents purporting to show that the Alaska

8

Attorney General has moved to vacate as void the Alaska child support orders, the claims

9

against the State of California are stayed and the State need not file a response to the amended

10

complaint. Instead, the parties shall appear for a case management conference on February 2,

11
Northern District of California

As Plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over the

6

United States District Court

5

2012 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom F at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA to address

12

the status of the Alaska child support orders and how to proceed. In addition, to the extent

13

Plaintiff did, in fact, remove the Alaska state court child support action to this Court, that

14

action is hereby remanded to the Alaska Superior Court.

15
16

Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this Order on all the parties and entities on whom
he served his purported removal pleading and to file a proof of service with this Court.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: December 1, 2011
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6