Dyer v. Brown County Child Support Enforcement Agency, State of Ohio et al
Filing
52
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1) Defendant's motion to dismiss 16 is GRANTED; 2) Plaintiff's motions for extension of time [21, 24] and motion to stay 45 are GRANTED NUNC PRO TUNC; 3) Defendants' remaining motions [26, 43, 46, 49] are DENIED. 4) This matter is stricken from the docket. Signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 11/14/2016.(TJZ)cc: COR, Richard Dyer via US Mail
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-cv-69 (WOB)
ROBERT E. DYER
PLAINTIFF
VS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BROWN COUNTY CHILD
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, STATE
OF OHIO, ET AL
Plaintiff,
DEFENDANTS
proceeding
pro
se,
has
filed
a
civil
rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants have
violated
his
right
not
to
be
subject
to
double
jeopardy
in
connection with their efforts to collect unpaid child support from
him.
(Doc. 1).
Defendants Cecilia Potts and the Brown County Child Support
Enforcement Agency have filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 16),
plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 43), and there
are several other non-dispositive motions pending as well.
(Docs.
21, 24, 26, 45, 46, 49).1
1
Defendant Campbell County Child Support was previously dismissed.
(Doc. 42).
Upon
review
of
the
complaint,
the
Court
concludes
that
plaintiff has not presented an actionable claim and that dismissal
of this case is warranted.
Briefly, plaintiff failed to pay child support in Ohio, and
the Brown County Child Support Enforcement Agency obtained a
judgment against him in Ohio state court.
After plaintiff moved
to Kentucky, the agency registered the judgment in Kentucky (Doc.
1-1
at
4-10),
and
the
Campbell
Circuit/Family
Court
ordered
plaintiff to pay $200 each month to satisfy the child support
arrearages.
(Doc.
1-1
at
11-12).
Plaintiff
asserts
that
defendants’ actions constitute double jeopardy.
The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no “person [shall]
be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of
life or limb.”
U.S. Const. amend. V.
“The constitution’s double jeopardy clause applies only to
successive criminal proceedings.”
606 F. Supp. 93, 96 (D.D.C. 2009).
Taylor v. District of Columbia,
In Taylor, the court faced a
very similar claim and explained:
Plaintiff’s contention in this complaint appears to be
based on confusion between a criminal sentence or
punishment, and other adverse actions by a governmental
authority that do not amount to criminal punishment. .
. .
The plaintiff’s underlying proceeding to enforce
the child support payments or sanctions for failure to
pay the ordered child support cannot, by definition,
constitute double jeopardy.
Id. (emphasis added).
2
Here, plaintiff was subject only to one proceeding — the Brown
County action — and it was not criminal in nature.
Plaintiff has
thus failed to state a plausible double jeopardy claim
Therefore, having reviewed this matter, and being otherwise
advised,
IT IS ORDERED that:
(1)
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 16) be, and is
hereby, GRANTED;
(2)
Plaintiff’s motions for extensions (Docs. 21, 24) and
motion to stay (Doc. 45) be, and are hereby, GRANTED
NUNC PRO TUNC;
(3)
Defendants’ remaining motion (Docs. 26, 43, 46, 49) be,
and are hereby, DENIED; and
(4)
This matter is stricken from the docket of the Court.
This 14th day of November, 2016.
3
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?