BENJAMIN v. BENJAMIN
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARK A. KEARNEY ON 9/25/17. 9/25/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(mbh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
September 25, 2017
Given our limited jurisdiction, we generally do not decide issues in ongoing state court
divorce proceedings. When, as today, a former husband disgruntled with the state court divorce
process sues his former wife under the civil rights laws seeking to vacate 2014 support orders or
strike pending state court rules to show cause in an ongoing divorce case, we must ensure he can
state a claim in our limited jurisdiction before we proceed. As he cannot state a claim for denial
of due process or equal protection against his former wife as she is not a state actor, we grant the
former wife's motion to dismiss. He fails to state a claim. We lack jurisdiction. Even if we
enjoyed jurisdiction, we cannot vacate 2014 state court support orders or pending scheduling
orders in the ongoing state court divorce matter. As there are no imaginable good faith grounds
under which the husband can sue his wife in this Court to vacate state court divorce orders based
on their present status, we will not grant the husband leave to amend his complaint. He must
proceed in the state court.
Sometime in 2012, 2014 and 2017, Levi Benjamin and his estranged wife Lydia CherrylAnn Coldero a.k.a. Lydia Benjamin disputed terms of their divorce in the Court of Common
Pleas for Philadelphia County. 1
This case arises from Mr. Benjamin appearing in the state court before Special Master
Pandofi on July 10, 2014 for a support hearing. 2 Mr. Benjamin requested a continuance of the
July 10, 2014 support hearing because his attorney did not appear. 3
He also requested a
continuance because he suffers from Post-Concussion Syndrome which causes cognitive defects
and he offered to enter his medical records into evidence to support his request. 4 Special Master
Pandofi denied Mr. Benjamin's request. 5
Mr. Benjamin described himself as "dizzy" and did not feel well while representing
himself during the July 10, 2014 hearing. 6 He informed Special Master Pandofi twice about his
dizziness and ill health. Special Master Pandofi did not decide if Mr. Benjamin could represent
himself with these symptoms, but continued with the support hearing. 7 Special Master Pandofi
awarded alimony pendente lite to Mr. Benjamin's estranged wife based on evidence adduced at
the July 10, 2014 hearing.
On September 2, 2014, Judge Elizabeth Jackson heard the parties' exceptions to Special
Master Pandofi's award of alimony pendente lite. 8
Judge Jackson denied Mr. Benjamin's
attempt to raise issues about his medical condition during the July 10, 2014 hearing. 9 On
September 2, 2014, Judge Jackson partially granted Mr. Benjamin's exceptions to the alimony
award and ordered him to pay $930 a month in alimony and maintain health insurance for his
estranged wife. 10
Mr. Benjamin petitioned to modify the September 2, 2014 Support Order on October 28,
2015. 11 He argued a medical assessment found him to be "totally and permanently disabled from
performing the duties of his job without further risk to his health." 12 It is unclear what happened
with his petition.
At some point, Mr. Benjamin also hired a private investigator to investigate his estranged
wife. 13 The investigator discovered his estranged wife lived in Florida with Rajesh Ramphal
"from a specific date in 2014 thru a specific date in 2017." 14 His estranged wife continued to
receive Mr. Benjamin's alimony pendente lite payments even though she lived with Mr.
Ramphal who worked full-time. 15 She also "knowingly failed or refused" to change her address,
state of residency, or her household income with the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia
For unknown but immaterial reasons, the September 2, 2014 Order apparently expired
because Mrs. Benjamin petitioned to reinstate September 2, 2014 Order awarding her alimony
pendente lite. She also requested an order of alimony pendente lite retroactive to April 26,
2016. 16 The court set a hearing for October 20, 2017. 17 On the same day, she also petitioned to
freeze the distribution of Mr. Benjamin's pension until after they resolved their divorce. 18 The
state court issued a rule to show cause and set a hearing for September 19, 2017. 19
In the middle of these ongoing proceedings, Mr. Benjamin sued his estranged wife in this
Court on August 15, 2017 alleging "his Rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment ...
were violated during the [July 10, 2014 support] hearing."20 Mr. Benjamin also alleges his
estranged wife violated his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Mr.
Benjamin requests we vacate Special Master Pandolfi's July 18, 2014 Proposed Order and Judge
Jackson's September 2, 2014 Order awarding alimony pendente lite. 21
Mr. Benjamin also
requests we dismiss his estranged wife's motions to reinstate alimony pendente lite and motion
to freeze Mr. Benjamin's pension distributions currently pending in the Court of Common Pleas
of Philadelphia County. 22
Ms. Benjamin moves to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(l) and (6) arguing we lack
subject matter jurisdiction because Mr. Benjamin does not raise a federal question under 28
U.S.C. § 1331 as he does not allege she violated his Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Even assuming we have subject matter jurisdiction based on his allegations, Mr.
Benjamin does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). 23 While
pro se pleadings, "must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers," they must "still allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim."24
Mr. Benjamin does not state a claim against his estranged wife.
Mr. Benjamin alleges Ms. Benjamin violated his right to due process and equal protection
under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Congress enacted§ 1983 to remedy violations of
rights under federal law, including their constitutional rights. 25 To state a § 1983 claim, Mr.
Benjamin must allege (1) Ms. Benjamin deprived him of due process under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments; and (2) Ms. Benjamin "acted under color of state law" when she
deprived him of his right to due process. 26
Construing Mr. Benjamin's allegations in the light most favorable to him, he does not
allege facts to demonstrate Ms. Benjamin is the person who deprived him of his constitutional
right to due process because he alleges Special Master Pandofi denied his request for
continuance, not Ms. Benjamin.
Even if he did allege Ms. Benjamin deprived him of due
process somehow, he does not allege facts showing Ms. Benjamin acted under color of state law.
Amendments to the Complaint are futile.
Even if Mr. Benjamin amended his Complaint and.alleged Judge Jackson denied him his
right to due process, we would dismiss because Judge Jackson is protected by judicial immunity
when ordering Mr. Benjamin to pay alimony in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County. 27 We would also dismiss Mr. Benjamin's same claim against Special Master Pandofi
because special masters "acting on a judicial matter in a capacity functionally equivalent to
judges" are also immune from suit. 28 Mr. Benjamin alleges Special Master Pandofi conducted a
hearing, issued a proposed order, and refused to grant Mr. Benjamin's continuance, all of which
are actions "functionally equivalent" to a judge. 29
We also cannot vacate the 2014 state court support orders because we are a court of
limited subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Benjamin asks us to vacate the order of state court judge.
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, we "do not have jurisdiction over cases brought by a state
court loser  complaining of injuries caused by [a] state-court judgment  rendered before the
district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of [that]
decision." 30 Our court of appeals held the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars jurisdiction where a
plaintiff requests a district court review a Family Court judge's suspension of the plaintiffs
parental visitation rights because the district court would have to "conclude that the Family Court
erred .... [and it] does not have the jurisdiction to so conclude."31
Mr. Benjamin also requests we vacate two rules to show cause on his wife's requests now
pending before a state court judge. We have no concurrent jurisdiction over divorce and alimony
matters and lack jurisdiction to intervene in ongoing divorce proceedings in state court. To the
extent Mr. Benjamin asks for us to vacate the pending rules to show cause, we decline to
exercise our limited jurisdiction under the Younger abstention doctrine. 32
argument concerning his 2014 support hearing and any defenses to the present petitions can be
resolved in the state court divorce action.
In the accompanying Order, we grant Mrs. Benjamin's motion to dismiss her former
husband's complaint. Mr. Benjamin does not, and cannot, state a civil rights claim against Mrs.
Benjamin arising solely from her role as an adversary in an ongoing divorce proceeding in state
His claim lacks merit, we lack subject matter jurisdiction and we cannot overturn state
court orders in this context.
Complaint, ECF Doc. No. 1 at 4 (Mr. Benjamin does not plead in paragraphs but in a page
narrative.). Mr. Benjamin attached exhibits with different docket headings. For example, Exhibit
C includes two rules to show cause, one filed under a 2012 docket and the other filed under a
Id at p. 2.
Exhibit B to Complaint, ECF Doc. No. 1 at 11.
ECF Doc. No. 1, at 3.
Exhibit C to Complaint, ECF Doc. No. 1 at 13.
Complaint, ECF Doc. No. 1, at 5.
In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), we accept all well-pleaded allegations in
the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, but
we "are not compelled to accept unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inference, or a legal
conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Castleberry v. ST! Group, 863 F.3d 259, 263 (3d
Cir. 2017) (quoting Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160, 165 (3d Cir. 2013)). "To survive a motion
to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Edinboro Coll. Park Apartments v. Edinboro Univ.
Found., 850 F.3d 567, 572 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Vehicle Carrier Serv. Antitrust Litig.,
846 F.3d 71, 79 n.4 (3d Cir. 2017)). A claim satisfies the plausibility standard when the facts
alleged "allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged." Maiden Creek Assoc., L.P. v. US. Dep 't ofTransp., 823 F.3d 184, 189 (3d
Cir. 2016) (quoting Ascroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). While the plausibility standard is
not "akin to a 'probability requirement,"' there nevertheless must be more than a "sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556). "Where a complaint pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's
liability, it 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief."'
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
Our Court of Appeals requires us to apply a three-step analysis under a 12(b)(6) motion:
( 1) "it must 'tak[e] note of the elements [the] plaintiff must plead to state a claim;"' (2) "it should
identify allegations that, 'because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the
assumption of truth;"' and, (3) "[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, [the] court
should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an
entitlement for relief." Connelly v. Lane Construction Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016)
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675, 679).
Coulston v. Glunt, 665 Fed. Appx. 128, 130 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972) and Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013)).
Our court of appeals instructs: "Our policy of liberally construing pro se submissions is driven by
the understanding that [i]mplicit in the right of self-representation is an obligation on the part of
the court to make reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants from inadvertent forfeiture of
important rights because of their lack of legal training." Higgs v. Atty. Gen. of the US., 655 F .3d
333, 339 (3d Cir.2011) (quoting Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 475 (2d
Cir.2006)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Our court of appeals consistently demands a civil rights complaint contain "a modicum of factual
specificity, identifying the particular conduct of defendants that is alleged to have harmed the
plaintiffs" but does not consider this requirement inconsistent with Haines. Ross v. Meagan, 638
F.2d 646, 650 (3d Cir. 1981). "Our case law requires dismissal of complaints which 'contain
only vague and conclusory allegations."' Id (citing Rotolo v. Borough of Charleroi, 532 F.2d
920, 922-23 (3d Cir. 1976); Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270, 1275-76 & n.15 (3d Cir.), cert.
denied, 400 U.S. 846 (1970); Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213 (3d Cir. 1967)).
See Groman v. Township of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 633 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Oklahoma
City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816 (1985)) ("Section 1983 of 42 U.S.C. does not create substantive
rights, but provides a remedy for the violation of rights created by federal").
See id. (citing Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 636, 640 (1980)).
Andrews v. Hens-Greco, 641 F. App'x 176, 179 (3d Cir. 2016) (citing See Figueroa v.
Blackburn, 208 F.3d 435, 440 (3d Cir. 2000)) ("Under the doctrine of absolute judicial
immunity, a judge is generally immune from suit in his or her individual capacity for money
Prater v. City of Philadelphia Family Court, 569 Fed. Appx. 76, 79 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing
Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225-26 (1988)).
McKnight v. Baker, 244 F. App'x 442, 444 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi
Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)).
Id. at 444-45 (internal citations omitted).
In Younger v. Harris, 44 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court instructed federal courts may not
enjoin ongoing state court proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.
We find no
extraordinary circumstances. Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 230 (1972).
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?