WAUGH v. PHILADELPHIA DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE GERALD A. MCHUGH ON 11/22/24. 11/22/24 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(amas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAQUANN WAUGH,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
PHILADELPHIA DOMESTIC
RELATIONS,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-CV-5538

MEMORANDUM
MCHUGH, J.

NOVEMBER 22, 2024

Pro se Plaintiff Jaquann Waugh filed a Complaint against “Philadelphia Domestic
Relations,” 1 seeking money damages and injunctive relief. Waugh seeks to proceed in forma
pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court will grant Mr. Waugh leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismiss his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
I.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 2
The factual allegations in Waugh’s Complaint are brief. He alleges that, beginning in

December 2022, the Philadelphia Family Court Domestic Relations Division violated his “god
given rights over child support for a child [he] never acknowledge[d] paternity for.” (Compl. at
3.) He states that an individual, who is not named as a defendant, is “garnishing [his] wages and
seizing property.” (Id.) He alleges that another person, also not named as a defendant, “lied to
[Judge] Holly J. Ford for contract information.” (Id.) He states that he was arrested for a
1

The lone Defendant that Waugh named is “Philadelphia Domestic Relations,” located at 1501
Arch St., Philadelphia, PA 19102. (Compl. at 2.) The Court understands Waugh to be referring
to the Philadelphia Family Court Domestic Relations Division.
2

The factual allegations set forth in this Memorandum are taken from Waugh’s Complaint (ECF
No. 2). The Court adopts the pagination supplied by the CM/ECF docketing system.

suspended driver’s license in March 2024 and has faced eviction “due to wages garnished [and]
false[] imprisonment.” (Id. at 4.) For relief, he asks to have a “case withdrawn with prejudice,
release of licenses [and] passport, and $150,000 for monetary compensation.” (Id.)
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court grants Mr. Waugh leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears that

he is incapable of paying the fees to commence this civil action. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires the Court to dismiss the Complaint if it fails to state a claim.
Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same
standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see
Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to
determine whether the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quotations omitted); Talley v. Wetzel, 15 F.4th 275, 286 n.7 (3d Cir. 2021). At the screening
stage, the Court will accept the facts alleged in the pro se Complaint as true, construe the
Complaint liberally, draw all reasonable inferences in Waugh’s favor, and then ask only whether
the Complaint contains facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Shorter v. United States,
12 F.4th 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2021), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Fisher v.
Hollingsworth, 115 F.4th 197 (3d Cir. 2024); see also Vogt v. Wetzel, 8 F.4th 182, 185 (3d Cir.
2021). Conclusory allegations do not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
III.

DISCUSSION
Mr. Waugh asks this Court to grant injunctive relief and award him money damages

based on events that occurred in Philadelphia Family Court. Although not entirely clear, it
appears that Waugh intends to assert Fourteenth Amendment due process claims under 42 U.S.C.

2

§ 1983. “To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by
the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Mr. Waugh has failed to state a claim to relief.
The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state and its agencies in federal court when
the state has not waived that immunity, Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65-66
(1989), and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not waived that immunity for civil rights
claims. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8521(b). The Philadelphia Family Court, a division of the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, is an arm of the Commonwealth and therefore shares in
the Commonwealth’s immunity. Benn v. First Judicial Dist. of Pa., 426 F.3d 233, 241 (3d Cir.
2005) (holding that Pennsylvania’s Judicial Districts are entitled to immunity from suit under the
Eleventh Amendment); Custis v. City of Philadelphia Ct. of Common Pleas, No. 21-3573, 2021
WL 3784257, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2021) (concluding that Domestic Unit of the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas “may not be sued under § 1983” as a division of a state court).
Moreover, Pennsylvania courts and their divisions are not considered “persons” subject to
liability under § 1983. See Karns v. Shanahan, 879 F.3d 504, 519 (3d Cir. 2018) (“States or
governmental entities that are considered arms of the State for Eleventh Amendment purposes
are not persons under § 1983.” (quoting Will, 491 U.S. at 70 (cleaned up))). The Constitution
prohibits me from granting the relief Mr. Waugh seeks. Accordingly, Mr. Waugh’s claims
against the Philadelphia Family Court must be dismissed. 3

3

Moreover, although not clear from the sparse allegations in the Complaint, to the extent that
Waugh seeks to have this Court review child-custody proceedings that have concluded in a
manner adverse to him, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts from reviewing
final judgments of a state court. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v.
3

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Mr. Waugh leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismiss his Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Leave to amend will not be given, as any attempt to amend would be futile,
because if the bar presented by immunity. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103,
108, 110 (3d Cir. 2002). An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gerald Austin McHugh
GERALD A. MCHUGH, J.

Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
applies to “[1] cases brought by state-court losers [2] complaining of injuries caused by statecourt judgments [3] rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and [4] inviting
district court review and rejection of those judgments”).
4