Jones v. State of Missouri et al

Filing 44

ORDER. Defendants Joni Nadine Stewart and Supportkids Services, Inc.'s motions to dismiss, Docs. 31 and 36, are granted. Signed on 10/20/14 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Matthes, Renea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
DARRYL LYNN JONES,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:14-cv-04087-NKL

ORDER
Defendants Joni Nadine Stewart and Supportkids Services, Inc.’s motions to dismiss,
Docs. 31 and 36, are granted.
I.

Background

The Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County, Missouri entered a decree in 1993
dissolving the marriage of Darryl Lynn Jones and Defendant Joni N. Jones (now Stewart). 1 The
decree established custody of a child born during the marriage, and Darryl Jones’ child support
obligation. Doc. 17-1, p. 2. Stewart took steps to enforce Jones’ support obligation, beginning
around 1993 and continuing through the present. Supportkids, a private child support collection
company, also attempted to collect it.
Jones argues that he is not the child’s biological father, that his numerous requests for
genetic testing made to the State and to his former wife have been wrongfully denied, and that he
1

For purposes of ruling on the Defendants’ motions to dismiss, the Court accepts
the allegations in Jones’ complaint as true. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 U.S. 1955, 1974
(2007). The Court will also consider the authenticated decree of dissolution of Jones’ marriage,
attached to an earlier filing in the case. Doc. 17-1. Because the decree is necessarily embraced
by the pleadings, considering the decree in the context of ruling on motions to dismiss does not
convert the motions to ones for summary judgment. See Enervations, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining
and Mfrg. Co., 380 F .3d 1066, 1069 (8th Cir. 2004) (documents necessarily embraced by the
pleadings may be considered in ruling on a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12).

should not have to pay the past-due support. He asks this Court for an order requiring genetic
testing; requiring Stewart to repay a portion of the child support payments and to stop defaming
and libeling him through garnishment of his pay checks; and awarding punitive damages.
Doc. 1, pp. 3, 10.
The Court previously granted Defendant State of Missouri’s motion to dismiss, because
the State has Eleventh Amendment immunity. Doc. 39.
II.

Discussion

Stewart and Supportkids raise several bases for dismissal, including the Ankenbrandt 2
domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction, and the Rooker-Feldman 3 abstention
doctrine. Dismissal is appropriate under either.
Ankenbrandt provides that federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear “cases involving the
issuance of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree,” including cases in which the state’s
determination of the status of a domestic relationship has some bearing on the plaintiff’s
underlying claim. Id. 504 U.S. at 704, 706. Here, a Missouri state court adjudicated the status of
Stewart and Jones’ domestic relationship, establishing Jones’ obligation to pay child support.
That determination has a bearing on Jones’ claim herein that he cannot lawfully be made to pay
the child support because he is not the child’s biological father. The Court therefore lacks
jurisdiction to decide Jones’ claims.
Even if Ankenbrandt did not somehow foreclose jurisdiction, the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine would require this Court to abstain. Rooker-Feldman prevents lower federal courts
from reviewing the judgments and decisions of state courts, and from hearing “claims that are

2

Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 704 (1992).
Rooker v. Fideltiy Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
3

2

inextricably intertwined with claims adjudicated in state court.” Fielder v. Credit Acceptance
Corp., 188 F.3d 1031, 1034 (8th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A claim is
inextricably intertwined if the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court
wrongly decided the issues before it [or] if the relief requested . . . would effectively reverse the
state court decision or void its ruling.” Charchenko v. Stillwater, 47 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir.
1995) (applying Rooker-Feldman doctrine).
Jones’s claims against Stewart and Supportkids are premised on the assumption that if he
is not the child’s biological father, then he should not have been obligated to pay child support
for a child born of the marriage. Even if his legal premise is true, to award Jones the relief he
requests would effectively require this Court to set aside the state court judgment establishing his
child support obligation.

Jones’ claims are inextricably intertwined with the state court

judgment. Therefore, Rooker-Feldman requires this Court to abstain.
In view of the foregoing, this Court need not address the Defendants’ additional
arguments in support of their motions to dismiss.
III.

Conclusion

Defendants Stewart and Supportkids’ motions to dismiss, Docs. 31 and 36, are granted
and the claims are dismissed with prejudice.

s/ Nanette K. Laughrey
NANETTE K. LAUGHREY
United States District Judge
Dated: October 20, 2014
Jefferson City, Missouri

3