Reese v. State of Maryland et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 6/21/2017. (c/m 6/22/2017 tds, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOI{ THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Divisioll
KELVIN DARREN REESE,
~I
'''I.
1 r""\
•
*
Plaintiff,
*
v.
*
STATE OF MARYLAND, et lit.,
*
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. G.JH-17-1.t87
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Kelvin Darren Reese filed this pro se Complaint against Defendants the State of
Maryland. Governor Larry Hogan. Attorney General Brian E. Frosh. Judge John Paul Davey.
Chief Judge Peter 13.Krauser. and John Siowe and Mary Murphy of the Prince Georgc's County
Ollice of Child Support Enforcement ("Defendants") on May 31. 20 J 7. ECF NO.1. along with a
Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF NO.2. which shall be granted. Plaintiff alleges
various statutory and constitutional violations of his civil rights. No hearing is neccssary. See
Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). Because Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted with respect to the calculation of his child support obligations. these claims shall be
dismissed. Plaintitrs claims against Governor Hogan and Mr. Frosh in their otlicial capacities.
and against Judge Davey and Judge Krauser. are barred lor reasons described below. Plaintiff
will. however. be afforded the opportunity to tile a separate civil rights action regarding his 2015
an'est and detention.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Rcesc sccks dcclaratory rclief and damages from this Court in thc context of
child support and custody procecdings emanating from the Circuit Court for Princc Gcorgc's
County. ECF NO.1 at 2. 25-27. Rcese asserts that his statutory rights and constitutional rights
under the Filih and Fourteenth Amcndmcnts havc bccn violated. and that hc has bccn dcnicd
equal protection by Defendants' actions in calculating his child support obligation bascd on
disability income he rcccivcs through thc Veterans Administration ("VA"). !d. at 20-24. Rccsc
lilrther statcs that Defendants' failurc to excludc his VA benetits from the child support
calculation violates his right to due process and his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. ~ 1983. and
amounts to a conspiracy under 42 U.S.c. ~ 1985. 1<1. at 23-24.
I
Plainti 1'1'
also statcs that in 2015.
hc was "illegally incarceratcd" for failure to pay child support. and that his dctcntion imposcd
cruel conditions of continement. 1<1. at 262
A review of the Maryland Judiciary Casc Search website. thc contcnt of which the Court
takes judicial notice. see Fed. R. Evid. 20 I(b)(2): Colonial Penn Ins. Co. \'. Coil. 887 F.2d 1236.
1239 (4th Cir. 1989). reveals that a September 4. 2014 ordcr issucd by thc Circuit Court for
Princc Georgc' s County asscsscd child support payments against Plaintiff at $1.264.00 per
month. See Reese \'. Reese. Case No. CAD13-22462 at Ok. 085 (Cir. Ct. Prince Georgc's Cty.
I Although VA benelits have been exempted from taxation and creditors' rights. the Supreme Court has ruled that 38
U.S.C. ~ 310 I(a), now codified at 38 U.S.C. ~ 530 I. docs not prevent a state from considering the benefits to
calculate child support. See Rose \'. Ilose. 481 U.S. 619. 630~634 (1987) .
.2 A.t the end of his Complaint. Plaintiff adds that. "[w]hile imprisoned I went through physical withdra\\'als from
medication that could have killed me. I sufTer with asthma and the Sheriffs threw me in a van with flO \ ••..indows and
turned the heat up to high '.•.. the outside temperature was ninety-six degrees (96). I was leli in a van laying on the
hile
floor \vith my mouth pressed to the door trying to get air:' ECF No. I at 26. It is unclear to the COllrt whether
PlaintitTintcnds to bring a claim against thc Defcndants in this action for these allegations. Thus. he will be
pennitted to tile a separate civil rights action regarding these allegations. and naming the appropriate defendants. if
he so chooses.
2016) ..1 On November 21. 2014. Plaintiff was held in contempt for failure to pay a $10.240.00
child support arrearage. See ill. at Dk. 092: lOCI'No. 1-4 at 5. On October 20. 2015. Judge Davey
again held Plaintiff in contempt lor lailure to satisfy the arrearage. and remanded Reese to the
custody of the sheriff until $5.000.00 of the arrearage was satislied. See Reese. CAD13-22462 at
Dk. J 27: lOCI'No. 1-4 at 3. Plaintiff was released on his personal recognizance that same day.
See Reese. CAD13-22462 at Dk. 128. Plaintiffs motion to modify child support was withdrawn
in open court on April 21. 2016. See hl.: lOCI'No. 1-4 at 4. Additional motions for modilication
and It)r contempt culminated in a notice of appeal to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
which was dismissed for procedural deficiencies on March 16. 2017. See Reese. Case No.
CADI3-22462 at Dk. 159-168: lOCI'No. 1-3 at 2-3. The Circuit Court case is closed for
statistieal purposes only. See Reese. Case No. CAD13-22462 at Dk. 158. The crux ofReese's
Complaint is that his veterans' benefits were wrongfully included as income in the calculation of
his child support obligations.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court may dismiss a case filed infiJl"lna pauperis if it determines that the action is
frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.c. ~ 1915(e)(2).
Although the Courts construes the pleadings of selt~represented litigants liberally. Erickson \'.
Pardu.l'. 551 U.S. 89. 94 (2007). a complaint must contain factual allegations suflicient to "raise
a right
10
relief above the speculative level" and "state a claim to rcliefthat is plausible on its
face." Bell A/lan/ic \'. TlI'ol11h1y. 50 U.S. 544. 555. 570 (2007).
5
'Reese
1'. Reese. Case No. CAD13-22462
(Cir. Cl. Prioee Georges Cly.).
http://casesearch.courts.state.llld.us/cascsearch! (last visited June 15. 2017).
,
.'
III.
ANALYSIS
Reese's Complaint must be dismissed becausc it is a maller Irom which this Court must
abstain. The Younger abstention doctrine. see Younger \'. flarris. 40 I U.S. 37 (1971 ). "requires a
federal court to abstain from interfering in state procccdings. even if jurisdiction cxists:' if there
is: ..( I) an ongoing state judicial proceeding. instituted prior to any substantial progrcss in the
federal proceeding: that (2) implicates important. substantial. or vital state interests: and (3)
provides an adequate opportunity for the plaintiff to raise the federal constitutional claim
advanced in the federal lawsuit:' Laurel Sand & Gravel. Inc.
1'.
Wilson. 519 !'Jd 156. 165 (4th
Cir. 2008) ... Younger is not merely a principle of abstention: rather. the case sets forth a
mandatory rule of equitable restraint. requiring the dismissal of a federal action:' Williallls \'.
Luhin. 516 1'. Supp. 2d 535. 539 (D. Md. 2007) (quoting Nivens
1'.
Gilchrist. 444 1'.3d 237. 247
(4th Cir. 2006)). Reese's state court proceedings are closed only for statistical purposes. and may
be reopened by the parties at any time, whether for contempt proceedings or to move for
modification of the monthly child support obligation. See Reese. Case No. CAD 13-22462 at Dk.
158. I'urthermore. the State of Maryland has a vital intcrest in ensuring the well-being of
children who reside in the state. providing further basis for abstention. See B.G.
CV RDB-15-2663. 2016 WL 3384941. at *7 (D. Md. June 20. 2016). affdsuh
1'.
Malhotra. No.
nOIll. No. 16.
1837.2017 WL 765794 (4th Cir. I'eb. 27. 2017) (abstaining from child custody case brought in
federal court. based on Younger. where State had important interest in welfare ofa child).
Additional grounds lor dismissal exist. PlaintifT does not indicate why the Governor or
the Maryland Attorney General are named in his Complaint. nor does he indicate whcthcr thcsc
Delendants are sued in thcir ofticial or individual capacities. As no actual misconduct is allcged
against Defendants Hogan and I'rosh. the Court shall assume they are named in their ofticial
capacities. Judgment against a public employee "in his official capacity" imposcs liability on the
4
public entity. See Bralldolll'. 110/1.469 U.S. 464. 471-72 (1985) (citing MOlle/l \'. Ne1l' York
Depl. a/Soc. Sen' .. 436 U.S. 658. 690 n.55 (1978) (internal quotation omitted». Thus. it follows
that Plaintiffs suit against Hogan and Frosh for actions undertaken in their oflicial capacity is a
claim against the State of Maryland. Under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States
Constitution. a state. its agencies. and departments are immune Ihnl1 suits in federal court
brought by its citizens or the citizens of another state. unless it consents. See Pellllhursl Slll/e
Sch. am/limjJ.
1'.
lIa/demulI1. 465 U.S. 89.100 (1984). While the State of Maryland has waived
its sovereign immunity for certain types of cases brought in state courts. see Md. Code. State
Gov't
* 12-202(a). it has not broadly waived its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment
in federal court. See Gray
I'.
to suit
La1l's. 51 F.3d 426. 431-32 (4th Cir. 1995) (noting that "it is well
established that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own
citizens ... ") (internal citations omitted): Madisoll1'. Wheal. No. GJI-l-16-1542, 2016 WL
3546223. at *2 (D. Md. Junc 23. 2016): Youllg
1'.
Dep'l oj'l'uh. Sa/i!ly & Carr. Sal's .. No.
eIV.A. DKC-14-1493, 2015 WI. 3932433. at *4 (D. Md. June 24. 2015). Thus.PlaintilTs
complaint against Hogan and Frosh in their official capacities is barred by the Eleventh
Amendmcnt.
Additionally. Plaintiff seeks to sue Maryland state judges for decisions made in their
judicial capacities. This cause of action is prohibited by the doctrine of judicial immunity. See
ivlire/es
1'.
Waco. 502 U.S. 9. 9 (1991) (per curiam) (noting that "generally. ajudge is immune
trom a suit for money damages."). As the Supreme Court wrote in For,.e,,'er
219.226-27
1'.
While. 484 U.S.
(1988):
If judges were personally liable lor erroneous decisions. the
resulting avalanche of suits. most of them Irivolous but vexatious.
would provide powerful incentives Ii)/' judges to avoid rendering
dccisions likely to provoke such suits. The resulting timidity would
be hard to detect or control. and it would manifestly detract from
independent and impartial adjudication. Nor are suits against
judges the only available means through which litigants can protect
5
themselvcs from thc consequences of judicial error. Most judicial
mistakes or wrongs arc open to correction through ordinary
mechanisms of rcview, which arc largely free of the harm lid
sidc-cffccts inevitably associatcd with exposing judges to personal
liability.
Forres/er. 484 U.S. at 226-27. "Like other fomls ofoflicial immunity. judicial immunity is an
immunity from suit. not just from ultimate assessment of damages:' Mireles. 502 U.S. at II.
This immunity can be overcomc only in two circumstanccs. A judgc is not immune from liability
tor actions taken outside the judge' s judicial capacity. nor I(H"actions. though judicial in nature.
taken in the complcte absence of all jurisdiction:'
Ill. 1lere. it is plain from the face of the
Complaint that Rcese's allegations derive from actions taken within Judge Davey and Judgc
Krauser'sjudicial
capacities. Rcese's core dispute is with the substance of child support rulings
that he perceives werc unjust. Notably. "immunity applies even whcn the judge is accuscd of
acting maliciously and corruptly'" Pierson
I'.
Ray. 386 U.S. 547. 554 (1967). Reese's Complaint
also fails to demonstrate that the Circuit Court. which is the court of general jurisdiction ftlr
Prince George's County. Maryland. lackcd jurisdiction over Reese's finnily law mailers.
Accordingly. the judges' acts were protected by judicial immunity. and Reese's claims against
them cannot proceed.
Moreover. there is an exception to this Court's jurisdiction that excludcs the authority to
hcar domestic relations mallcrs. See e.g RafieIJ'I'. Sm/l. 756 F.2d 335. 343 (4th Cir. 1985)
(domestic relations cxception to lederal courts' jurisdiction bascd on idca that statc courts havc
"a stronger and more direct intcrest in the domestic relations of its citizens than docs thc lederal
court"); WassermanI'. Wasserman. 671 F.2d 832. 834 (4th Cir. 1982) ("divcrsityjurisdiction
does not include thc powcr to grant divorces. determine alimony or support obligations. or decide
child custody rights"); Can/or \'. Cohen. 442 F.3d 196,202 (4th Cir. 2006) (noting that "fedcral
6
courts ...
Complaint
generally
abstain from hearing child custody matters").
is the calculation
and imposition
of child
SUPP0l1
The gravamen
obligations.
of Reese's
a domestic
relations
matter from which the Court properly abstains.
Finally. this Court notes that to the extent Plaintifrs
constitutional
and statutory
he may consult appropriate
reopening.
rights with regard to the calculation
the Complaint.
that observation.
his
of child support have any merit.
as to the merits of those claims: however.
the deficiencies
and the child support calculation
improperly-tiled.
regarding
counsel and assert them in the state case. which remains subject to
This Court makes no observation
notwithstanding
assertions
noted cannot be cured through amendment
portion of the action must be dismissed
and for lailure to state a cognizable
of
as
federal claim upon which the relief sought
may be granted. See Goode v. Cel7f. Virxillia Lexa{ Aid Soc ~v./IIC .• 807 F.3d 619. 624 (4th Cir.
2015). PlaintifTis
free. ifhe so chooses. to assert a civil rights action with regard to his 2015
arrest and detention
in this Court by way of a separate action using Court-approved
naming the appropriate
IV.
forms and
delendants.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing
reasons. the Complaint
other than the claim concerning
Plaintiffs
is dismissed
with prejudice as to all claims
2015 arrest and detention.
A separate Order shall
ISSUC.
dA-
?:>/;..; /2 of]
6EORGE J. HAZEL
Date
United States District Judge
7
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?