Gough v. Calvert County Social Services et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 2/29/2016. (nd2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
JOHN V. GOUGH, JR.,

:

Plaintiff

:
:

v.
CALVERT COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES
TAMMY LAFFERTY

CIVIL ACTION NO. DKC-16-531

:
:

Defendants
MEMORANDUM OPINION
John V. Gough, Jr. (“Gough”), a resident of Washington, D.C., seeks money damages
and criminal prosecution of the Calvert County Department of Social Services (“DSS”) and
Calvert County Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Tammy Lafferty.1

Gough alleges they

conspired, causing him to suffer defamation, malicious prosecution and arrest, and other tortious
injury with regard to paternity and child support actions.2
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. First, this court
does not have jurisdiction to review Gough’s challenges to state orders requiring his payment of
child support. “Under the Rooker-Feldman3 [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

1

Gough has failed to provide a filing fee or indigency affidavit with his Complaint. As the case may not
proceed, he shall not be required to correct this deficiency.
2

Maryland’s electronic docket reveals that Gough was named in two paternity cases filed in the Circuit Court
for Calvert County. See Case No. 04P97000102, Sarah Elizabeth King and DSS v. John V. Gough, Jr. (ongoing
child
support
initiated
in
1997
and
ending
on
March
1,
2013)
(casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiryDetail.jis?) and Case No. 04P85000045, Gretchen Elaine Harris &
DSS v. John V. Gough, Jr. (ongoing child support initiated in 1985 and ending in 2003)
(casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiryDetail.jis?). Tammy Lafferty represented DSS and the plaintiffs in
each case.
3

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).

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 at any time. Jordahl v.
Democratic Party of Va., 122 F.3d 192, 197 n. 5 (4th Cir. 1997). “[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, to the extent Gough intends to seek damages for civil rights violations, his
complaint fails to state a federal claim. To sustain an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Gough
must demonstrate that: (1) he suffered a deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution of the
United States; and (2) the act or omission causing the deprivation was committed by a person
acting under color of law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Calvert County’s DSS is not a
“person” subject to suit or liability under § 1983.
Further, Maryland’s States Attorneys are quasi-judicial officers who enjoy absolute
immunity when performing prosecutorial, as opposed to investigative or administrative
functions.

See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976).

Because absolute immunity is

designed to protect the judicial process, the inquiry is whether a prosecutor’s actions are closely
associated with judicial process. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991). The decision to
pursue child support payment is “quasi-judicial,” and therefore, Defendant Lafferty enjoys
absolute immunity for her actions on behalf of DSS and the affected mothers and children.
Finally, Gough has no legally protected interest in the prosecution of others.

The

Supreme Court said in Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973): “[I]n American
jurisprudence at least, a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or

2

nonprosecution of another.” See also Banks v. Buchanan, 336 Fed. App’x 122, 123 (3d Cir.
2009); Sargeant v. Dixon, 130 F.3d 1067, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Sibley v. Obama, 866 F. Supp.
2d 17, 22 (D.D.C. 2012) aff’d, Civ. No. 12-5198, 2012 WL 6603088 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 6, 2012),
cert denied, ____ U.S. ____, 133 S. Ct. 1263 (2013); Speight v. Meehan, Civ. No. 08-3235, 2008
WL 5188784, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2008).
For these reasons, the Complaint shall be dismissed, by separate Order to follow.

Date:

February 29, 2016

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

3