Pugh v. Espanol
Filing
3
Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2 ) is granted and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The dismissal is w ithout prejudice to any valid state law claim Plaintiff may have under the facts alleged. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 12/23/2015. (JLG)
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
TERRY L. PUGH,
Plaintiff,
v.
GLORIA M. ESPANOL,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:15CV2532
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Terry L. Pugh has filed this in forma pauperis action against his ex-wife,
Gloria M. Espanol. He alleges that he and Defendant, who is now a Nevada resident, were divorced
in 2006, and that since their divorce, Espanol has refused to allow him the visitation to which he is
entitled with their daughter, T.P.1 Plaintiff alleges he has traveled to Las Vegas seven times since
2006, but Defendant has only allowed him to see his daughter for a total of thirteen hours and has
stated she will never allow their daughter to visit him in Ohio. Plaintiff alleges he has not obtained a
“fair outcome” in connection with a complaint he filed in “family court” and that the “only option[]
that remain[s] is federal court since [his] [ex-wife] relocated to Nevada.” Complaint (ECF No. 1).
He seeks custodial visitation and cessation of child support.
The Court must dismiss the above-entitled action. The Sixth Circuit has made clear that
“federal courts will not entertain matters involving domestic relations even though diversity of
citizenship exists.” Firestone v. Cleveland Trust Co., 654 F.2d 1212, 1213 (6th Cir. 1981) . The
reason for this rule is that domestic relations and child custody cases involve local problems which are
1
Local Rule 8.1(a) requires that the parties refrain from including, or partially redact,
certain personal identifiers including names of minor children. Given the language of the
rule, only the initials of the daughter of the parties is used herein.
(4:15CV2532)
“peculiarly suited to state regulation and control, and peculiarly unsuited to control by federal courts.”
Id. at 1215 (quoting Buechold v. Ortiz, 401 F.2d 371, 373 (9th Cir. 1968)). It is clear from the
Complaint (ECF No. 1) that Plaintiff is asking the Court to make a determination of custody and child
support. The Court lacks jurisdiction to grant this type of relief.
Furthermore, Plaintiff suggests in his pleading that a domestic relations case remains pending
in state court. Although Plaintiff asserts he has not been able to obtain a “fair outcome” in state court,
Plaintiff does not set forth facts reasonably suggesting that the state court has refused to provide him
with an adequate opportunity to raise the concerns he alleges here regarding visitation and child
support. Accordingly, even if this Court otherwise had jurisdiction over the claims Plaintiff alleges,
the Court would abstain from interfering with a pending state domestic relations matter. See, e.g.,
Pinkney v. State of Ohio, Case No. 1:05CV1069, 2005 WL 1491228 (N.D. Ohio June 23, 2005)
(Boyko, J.) (dismissing pro se action asking federal court to make determination of child custody and
intervene in a state juvenile case).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.
For the reasons stated above, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The dismissal
is without prejudice to any valid state law claim Plaintiff may have under the facts alleged. The Court
certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in
good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 23, 2015
Date
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
2
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?