King v. Child Support Enforcement Agency et al

Filing 2

ORDER RE: PRE-FILING SCREENING. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 1/28/2025. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2025)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TROY DEMOND KING, Plaintiff, 8 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 Case No. 3:25-mc-80014-JSC ORDER RE: PRE-FILING SCREENING v. 10 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff Troy Demond King is subject to a vexatious litigant order, and so, the 14 undersigned, as duty judge, must determine whether this action may be filed. The vexatious 15 litigant order entered against Mr. King provides: “The Clerk of Court shall not file or accept any 16 new complaints filed by Troy Demond King against government agencies or their representatives 17 or against financial services institutions, unless and until that complaint has first been reviewed by 18 the general duty judge of this Court and approved for filing.” King v. Fidelity Investments, No. 24- 19 2148-SI, Dkt. No. 21 at 9 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2024). In this action, Plaintiff brings claims against 20 the Ohio Child Support Enforcement Agency, Ohio Jobs & Family Services, the State of Ohio, 21 and the State of California. 22 The Court DENIES Plaintiff King leave to file this action. The purported claims are 23 within the scope of the prefiling review order as they are brought against government agencies. 24 (Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) Upon review, the claims are subject to dismissal under the Eleventh 25 Amendment and for failure to state a cognizable claim. 26 First, Plaintiff’s claims against Ohio, California, and two Ohio agencies are barred by the 27 Eleventh Amendment. Absent consent, the Eleventh Amendment bars a suit in federal court “in 28 which the State or one of its agencies or departments is named as the defendant.” Papasan v. 1 Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 276 (1986) (quoting Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 2 89, 100 (1984)); see also McVicker v. Hartfield, No. 2:08-CV-1110, 2009 WL 2431257, at *8 3 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 6, 2009) (holding [Ohio Jobs & Family Services] is an agency of the State of 4 Ohio, and therefore is considered an arm of the state for purposes of Eleventh Amendment 5 immunity.”). At least one of Plaintiff’s actions has previously been dismissed as barred by the 6 Eleventh Amendment. See King v. Alameda Cnty. Dep’t of Child Support Servs., No. 21-CV- 7 02839-SI, 2022 WL 3702100, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2022) (dismissing claim against the 8 California Department of Motor Vehicles as barred by the Eleventh Amendment). United States District Court Northern District of California 9 Second, Plaintiff’s claims are not cognizable. Plaintiff does not provide a legal basis for 10 his claims against California, Ohio, or the two Ohio agencies, or identify any legal or factual basis 11 for his claims. Instead, he requests “release” from an unspecified “debt” and attaches an April 20, 12 2023 letter from the Department of Justice reminding colleagues that the DOJ “is committed to 13 working with state and local courts and juvenile justice agencies to ensure that their assessment of 14 fines and fees is constitutional and nondiscriminatory.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 3-6.) These allegations fail 15 to state a cognizable claim for relief. See Whitaker v. Tesla Motors, Inc., 985 F.3d 1173, 1176 16 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding a complaint “require[s] well-pleaded facts, not legal conclusions [] that 17 plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”) (cleaned up). 18 19 Accordingly, the Clerk shall not accept the Complaint. The Clerk is requested to the close the case. No further filings will be accepted in this matter. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 28, 2025 23 24 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?