Jeep v. Government of the United States of America et al
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2 ] is GRANTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 10/07/2015. (CLK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
DAVID GERARD JEEP,
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, et al.,
No. 4:15CV1533 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s complaint and motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to review the
complaint and dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
Plaintiff alleges that his rights were violated by a state family court judge in 2003, when
the judge issued an order of protection barring him from contact with his ex-wife. The complaint
is a longwinded, rambling diatribe about the unfairness of the courts and overreaching
government powers. The complaint is substantially similar to several previous cases plaintiff has
brought before the Court, all of which were dismissed pre-service. E.g., Jeep v. Government of
the United States, 4:13CV2490 RWS (E.D. Mo.) (listing cases).
This Court lacks jurisdiction over family court matters. Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859,
861 (8th Cir. 1994) (“The domestic relations exception . . . divests the federal courts of
jurisdiction over any action for which the subject is a divorce, allowance of alimony, or child
custody.”).1 As a result, plaintiff’s claims relating to the family court must be dismissed under
Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The remainder of plaintiff’s claims are frivolous and malicious. The nature and tone of
the allegations demonstrate that plaintiff’s purpose is to harass the named defendants rather than
vindicate a cognizable legal right. As a result, this action is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Dated this 7th day of October, 2015
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff cites to the recent Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges, 125 S.Ct. 2071 (2015),
to bolster his assertion that this Court should have jurisdiction over his attempts to hold his exwife liable for her conduct during their divorce proceedings. Obergefell is a landmark Supreme
Court case in which the Court held that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex
couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution. It does not speak to this Court’s ability to
interfere in a state court/family court matter, or to modify child custody or divorce proceedings.
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?