TAFARO v. MILLER, ET AL

Filing 10

OPINION. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 12/6/2011. (gxh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
STEPHEN T. TAFARO,
Plaintiff,
v.
MELANIE MILLER, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-4231 (MLC)
O P I N I O N

THE PLAINTIFF, Stephen T. Tafaro, brings this pro se action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) against the defendants —
(1) his former spouse, Melanie Miller, and (2) the State of New
Jersey — concerning determinations made by the New Jersey state
courts regarding his divorce, custody of his children, and child
support payments (“State Court Matter”).
Compl.)1

(See dkt. entry no. 1,

The details of the State Court Matter have been well-

documented by the state courts.

See Miller v. Tafaro, Nos.

A-3709-09T3, A-5461-09T3, 2011 WL 2321303 (N.J. App. Div. May 27,
2011); Miller v. Tafaro, Nos. A-2120-09T3, A-3039-09T3, 2011 WL
43311 (N.J. App. Div. Jan. 7, 2011), certif. denied, 205 N.J. 519
(2011); Miller v. Tafaro, No. A-4469-07T3, 2009 WL 1286825 (N.J.
App. Div. May 12, 2009); Tafaro v. Tafaro, No. A-1189-05T1, 2006
WL 2355070 (N.J. App. Div. Aug. 16, 2006); Tafaro v. Tafaro, No.
A-4402-04T1, 2006 WL 1911390 (N.J. App. Div. July 13, 2006).
1

same).)

Tafaro paid the filing fee.

(See dkt. entry no. 1 (noting

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY now moves to dismiss the claims
against it.

(See dkt. entry no. 5, Notice of Mot.)

opposes the motion.

Tafaro

(See dkt. entry no. 7, Pl. Opp’n.)

The

Court will (1) grant the motion, (2) dismiss the claims against
the State of New Jersey, and (3) dismiss, sua sponte, the claims
against Miller.2
THIS ACTION concerns a domestic relations matter involving
divorce, alimony, child custody, and child support over which the
Court lacks jurisdiction.

See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S.

689, 702-04 (1992); Mayercheck v. Judges of Pa. Sup. Ct., 395
Fed.Appx. 839, 842 (3d Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 945
(2011); see also Galtieri v. Kane, No. 03-2994, slip op. at 3 (3d
Cir. Mar. 4, 2004) (stating federal court has no jurisdiction

2

The Court may dismiss, sua sponte, the claims asserted
against a nonmovant defendant:
when the allegations within the complaint “are so attenuated
and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, ...
wholly insubstantial, ... obviously frivolous, ... plainly
unsubstantial, ... or no longer open to discussion.”
DeGrazia v. Fed. Bur. of Investigation, 316 Fed.Appx. 172, 173
(3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37
(1974)); see Smith v. Farnan, No. 10–830, 2011 WL 2119340, at *5
(D.Del. May 27, 2011) (granting motion by two defendants to
dismiss claim of fee-paying pro se plaintiff asserted against
them, and dismissing claim asserted against nonmomvant defendant,
sua sponte, in reliance on Hagans and DeGrazia); see 10-28-08
Order, Dubose v. Walsh, No. 07-45 (D. Del. Oct. 28, 2008)
(adopting Report and Recommendation, found at 2008 WL 4426090 (D.
Del. Sept. 29, 2008), which applied Hagans in action brought by
fee-paying pro se plaintiff).
2

over domestic relations matter even when complaint is drafted in
tort, contract, “or even under the federal constitution”).
TAFARO is also attempting to avoid the determinations issued
in the State Court Matter.

The proper way to do so is to seek

review through the state appellate process, and then seek
certiorari directly to the United States Supreme Court.

See D.C.

Ct. of Apps. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fid.
Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 414-16 (1923).

The Rooker-Feldman

doctrine prohibits adjudication where the relief requested would
require a federal court to either determine whether a state
court’s decision is wrong or void that decision, and thus would
prevent a state court from enforcing its orders.

See McAllister

v. Allegheny Cnty. Fam. Div., 128 Fed.Appx. 901, 902 (3d Cir.
2005).

This Court cannot directly or indirectly review, negate,

void, or provide relief that would invalidate decisions in the
State Court Matter.

See White v. Sup. Ct. of N.J., 319 Fed.Appx.

171, 173 (3d Cir. 2009) (affirming district court’s dismissal of
claim challenging state court decisions in plaintiff’s child
custody case); Kliesh v. Bucks Cnty. Dom. Rel., No. 04-4714, slip
op. at 2 (3d Cir. Oct. 27, 2005) (affirming district court’s
dismissal of complaint, as “Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars the
review of a state court child support order”).
THE COURT also must abstain from exercising jurisdiction
pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine.
3

The Court must

abstain because (1) aspects of the State Court Matter can be
viewed as being ongoing, (2) important state interests are
implicated, and (3) Tafaro has an adequate opportunity to raise
the claims in state court.

(See dkt. entry no. 9, Pl. Br. at 16-

20 (confirming State Court Matter is ongoing).)

See Middlesex

Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435
(1982); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971); see also
DiPietro v. N.J. Fam. Support Payment Ctr., 375 Fed.Appx. 202,
204-05 (3d Cir. 2010) (affirming district court’s dismissal of
claim concerning child support, as “New Jersey courts are charged
with monitoring, enforcing, and modifying child support
obligations throughout the duration of a child support order”);
Anthony v. Council, 316 F.3d 412, 418-21 (3d Cir. 2003)
(concerning action brought by persons subject to state child
support orders).
THE SECTION 1983 CLAIMS against the State of New Jersey are
barred, as “the State of New Jersey . . . enjoy[s] sovereign
immunity in federal court” and “the State of New Jersey . . . is
[not] a ‘person’ under 42 U.S.C. § 1983”.

Hussein v. New Jersey,

403 Fed.Appx. 712, 715 (3d Cir. 2010) (affirming district court’s
dismissal of claim seeking damages under Section 1983 against
State of New Jersey); see Thorpe v. New Jersey, 246 Fed.Appx. 86,
86-87 (3d Cir. 2007) (affirming district court’s dismissal of
complaint pursuant to Eleventh Amendment immunity, where plaintiff

4

asserted State of New Jersey violated Section 1983 by depriving
him of custody of children).

Any claims under Section 1983 that

may be construed to be against Miller are also barred, as Miller
is not a state actor.

See Boyd v. Pearson, 346 Fed.Appx. 814,

816 (3d Cir. 2009) (affirming district court’s dismissal of
complaint where defendant was not state actor).

Section 1983

does not cover merely private conduct, no matter how wrongful.
St. Croix v. Etenad, 183 Fed.Appx. 230, 231 (3d Cir. 2006).
TAFARO asserts that the claims against the State of New
Jersey may be construed to be against the judges involved in the
State Court Matter.

(Pl. Opp’n at 12.)

But such claims would be

barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

Judges cannot be

held civilly liable for their judicial acts, even when those acts
are in excess of their jurisdiction and alleged to have been done
maliciously or corruptly.

See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,

356-57 (1978); Figueroa v. Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435, 440 (3d Cir.
2000); see also Dongon v. Banar, 363 Fed.Appx. 153, 155 (3d Cir.
2010) (affirming district court’s dismissal of claim against New
Jersey state judges involved in plaintiff’s child support case);
White, 319 Fed.Appx. at 173 (affirming district court’s dismissal
of claim asserted against New Jersey state judges involved in
plaintiff’s child custody case).
TO THE EXTENT that Tafaro asserts any discernible claims
concerning a conspiracy to deprive him of federal rights, such

5

allegations appear to be based on mere speculation and thus are
without merit.

See Gera v. Pennsylvania, 256 Fed.Appx. 563, 565-

66 (3d Cir. 2007).3
THE COURT thus intends to dismiss the entire Complaint.

The

Court will issue an appropriate order and judgment.4

s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Dated:

December 6, 2011

3

The claims against Miller also may be barred by the
doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
4

The plaintiff cross-moved for miscellaneous relief. (See
dkt. entry no. 9, Notice of Cross Mot., Pl. Br., & Pl. Appendix.)
As the entire Complaint will be dismissed, the Court will deny
the cross motion as moot.
6