Celestine v. Prince George's County Circuit Court et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 7/19/2012. (c/m 7/19/12 rs) (rss, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CURTIS CELESTINE

*

Plaintiff

*

v

*

PRINCE GEORGES CIRCUIT COURT,
PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY OFFICE OF
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT,
And PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY

Civil Action No. DKC-12-1990

*
*
*

Defendants
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The above-captioned complaint was filed on July 3, 2012, together with a Motion to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 2. Because he appears to be indigent, Plaintiff’s motion
will be granted.
Plaintiff alleges an Order issued in June of 1997 by Judge Martin of the Circuit Court for
Prince George’s County was void when entered because it violates his Fourteenth Amendment
rights. ECF No. 1. He further states that enforcement of the order violates his rights under Title
VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiff is an
African American who served in the United States Air Force and is a disabled veteran. He
claims that Judge Martin wrongfully imputed income to him because he was participating in a
Veterans Rehabilitation and Employment Program by attending college. Under Judge Martin’s
order, Plaintiff states he has been required to pay child support of $600 plus arrearages. Plaintiff
states he receives $1080 in disability payments from the Veteran’s Administration and that his
motion for reconsideration of the support payments was denied and his attempt to raise changed
circumstances was not permitted to proceed.

ECF No. 1 at pp. 3 – 5. He further claims the

court’s refusal to follow “state statute §12-2041 is blatant discrimination based on plaintiff’s
disability.” Id. at p. 6. Plaintiff seeks an order from this court enjoining further enforcement of
the 1997 order as well as monetary damages. Id. at p. 10.
The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. First, Plaintiff’s
allegations are in the nature of a challenge to an existing state order requiring his payment of
child support. This court does not have jurisdiction to review the validity of a state court’s order.
AUnder the Rooker-Feldman2 [abstention] doctrine, a >party losing in state court is barred from
seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States
district court.=@ American Reliable Insurance v. Stillwell, 336 F. 3d 311, 316 (4th Cir. 2003)
quoting Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is
jurisdictional and, as such, this court is free to raise it sua sponte. Jordahl v. Democratic Party of
Va., 122 F.3d 192, 197 n. 5 (4th Cir.1997). A[T]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine . . . by elevating
substance over form, preserves the independence of state courts as well as congressional intent
that an appeal from a state court decision must proceed through that state's system of appellate
review rather than inferior federal courts.@ Stillwell, 336 F. 3d at 391.
Secondly, the complaint fails to state a federal claim. A claim raised pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §1983 must be raised against a person. Plaintiff has not named a person as a defendant in
this case. An ADA claim involves an allegation that a disabled person has been excluded from
public accommodations or programs based on their disability. See Doe v. University of Md.
Medical Systems Corporation, 50 F.3d 1261, 1265 (4th Cir. 1995); see also 42 U.S.C. Section
12131 et seq (ADA claim requires a showing by plaintiff that he is a person with a disability as

1

Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law §12-204 establishes guidelines for the calculation of child support.

2

District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482,(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263
U.S. 413, 416 (1923).

2

defined by the statute, who is otherwise qualified for the benefit he claims to have been denied;
and that he was excluded due to discrimination based on the disability). The only allegation
raised in the instant complaint is that Plaintiff’s disability payments are counted as income for
purposes of paying child support; it does not allege exclusion from a public benefit based on
Plaintiff’s disability. The Rehabilitation Act and Title VII claims are not clearly stated, but there
are no allegations that Plaintiff has been denied employment by the named Defendants because
of his disability. His assertion that he is the subject of retaliation because he called the state
court to talk to the ADA coordinator is frivolous.
A separate Order dismissing the Complaint follows.

July 19, 2012 _
Date

___________/s/____________________
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

3