Bobo v. Tulare County District Attorney et al
Filing
6
ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION: Ordered Application for Leave to Proceed IFP 2 is granted. However, the clerk shall not issue process. Findings & Recommendation: Complaint 1 should be dismissed. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 8/4/2014. Signed on 7/17/2014 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb) Corrected formatting error on 7/18/2014 (plb).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
6:14-cv-1067-TC
CHARLES LEWIS BOBO,
Plaintiff,
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
v.
TULARE COUNTY and KING COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
Defendant.
COFFIN, Magistrate Judge:
Pro se plaintiff, Charles Bobo, brings this action against the Tulare and King County
California District Attorneys seeking $2,000,000 for damages allegedly related to garnishment of
wages, unemployment and disability benefits for child support. Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP). A review of plaintiffs application reveals he is unable to afford the costs oflitigation
and his application (#2) is therefore granted. However, the clerk shall not issue process as the case
should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The court should dismiss, at the earliest practical time, certain IFP actions that fail to state
a claim.
28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In determining the sufficiency of a prose complaint, the
court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the plaintiff. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
Page 1 -FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
519, 520-21 (1972). The court must "accept as true all of the allegations in the complaint and all
reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff." Morse v. Lower Merion School Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff alleges as follows:
Fact of case = You have Tulare County District Attorney took about 15 0. 00 wk State
of Calif a total of 50% payroll they took 25% of my unemployment benefit for child
support.
Describe Defendant Involved = Tulare County Dept of Child Support Services passport
denial year 2006 state licensing suspension unemployment disability monthly billing
statement interest on past due support when the conduct occurred June 28, 1996
Any injuries suffered as a result = Known.
Complaint (#1) at p. 3 (sic throughout). Plaintiff alleges the same with respect to the King County
District Attorney.
Putting aside issues of immunity on the part of defendants, federal courts do not involve
themselves with issues of domestic relations. Despite the diversity of the parties, the court lacks
diversity jurisdiction over cases involving domestic relations. The domestic relations exception to
federal jurisdiction prohibits federal courts from hearing "cases involving the issuance of a divorce,
alimony, or child custody decree." Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992). The bar on
federal jurisdiction applies to ancillary matters. Kabacinski v. Kabacinski, 2013 WL 6092513 at *2
(D .Del. November 18, 2013.). In this case, plaintiff necessarily challenges the State of California's
award of child support which falls within the exception involving child support issues.
Moreover, despite the lack of clarity of any purported violation by defendants, the court is
barred from entertaining plaintiffs complaint under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as well. See, e.g.,
Redford v. Gwinnett County Judicial Circuit, 350 F. App'x 341,344-45 (applyingRooker-Feldman
jurisdictional bar to plaintiffs section 1983 action against Georgia county judicial circuit, several
judges, and county's child support services, alleging due process violations related to state court
Page 2- FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
proceedings regarding his child custody arrangement, because action was "an explicit attempt to use
the federal courts to overturn the Georgia State courts' decisions"); Doe v. Pryor, 344 F.3d 1282,
1286 (11th Cir. 2003) (observing that Rooker-Feldman would preclude federal judicial review of
state-court custody determination); Liedel v. Juv. Ct. ofMadison Cnty., Ala., 891 F.2d 1542, 1545
(11th Cir. 1990) (dismissing complaint for lack ofjurisdiction under Roo ker-F eldman where parents
dissatisfied with state court's child custody determinations brought section 1983 suit seeking
injunctive relief against Department of Human Resources and Juvenile Court, because relief
requested "would effectively nullify those state orders"); Staley v. Ledbetter, 837 F.2d 1016, 1017
(11th Cir. 1988) (holding that Rooker-Feldman deprived district court ofjurisdiction over plaintiffs
section 1983 claim in which she requested reinstatement of parental custody based on alleged
violations of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, because
plaintiff"in essence sought to reverse a state court's child custody determination"). Even if plaintiff
is merely asserting that the district attorneys garnished an amount in excess ofhis support obligations
or an amount allowed by law, such an assertion would challenge the State court's orders to garnish
his wages and benefits which would still run afoul of Rooker-Feldman.
Accordingly, the court
should dismiss this action with prejudice as it is clear that an amendment will not resolve the
jurisdictional deficiencies.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit
Court of appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment or appealable order. The
parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation
within which to file specific written objections with the court. Thereafter, the parties shall have
fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections
Page 3 -FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
to any factual determination of the Magistrate Judge will be considered as a waiver of a party's right
to de novo consideration of the factual issues and will constitute a waiver of a party's right to
appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to this
recommendation.
DATED this
{1 day of July, 2014.
Page 4- FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
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?