POL v. BUTLER COUNTY COURT DOMESTIC RELATION SECTION

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 6 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The action is dismissed and the Clerk is directed to mark the case closed. Signed by Judge David S. Cercone on 4/18/13. (mwm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DY POL,
Plaintiff,
v.
BUTLER COUNTY COURT
DOMESTIC RELATION SECTION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11cv740
Electronic Filing

MEMORANDUM ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of April, 2013, upon due consideration of defendant's motion to
dismiss and plaintiff's brief in opposition thereto, IT IS ORDERED that [6] the motion be, and
the same hereby is, granted. Accordingly, the action is dismissed. The Clerk shall mark the case
closed.
Plaintiff commenced this action claiming that he was treated differently than other
Caucasian males who were sentenced for contempt of court for failure to pay child support.
Plaintiff complains that he sought relief in the form of having "a reduction in my purge
[amount]," modification and the ceasing of support payments while he was incarcerated, and for
sentence reduction. On these as well as other occasions his motions and requests for relief were
denied even though he raised instances where Caucasian males were treated more favorably. See
generally Complaint (Doc. No. 3). Plaintiff seeks an award of money damages. Id.
Defendant the Domestic Relations Section of Butler County Court moves to dismiss the
action on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity. Plaintiff opposes the motion on the
ground that the court is run by the people who work in the court and who necessarily made the
decisions to treat him unfairly. These individuals abused their authority and as a result
defendant must be held accountable for the resulting civil rights violations. Without appropriate

accountability, defendant and those whose work in county court will continue to abuse their
power and act without taking the underlying facts into consideration. Plaintiff's Brief in
Opposition (Doc. No. 10).
Suits against the state are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.1 Alabama v. Pugh, 438
U.S. 781, 781-82 (1978). Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to suits against the state
regardless of the relief sought. In re Kish, 212 B.R. 808, 814 (Bkrtcy D. N.J. 1997) (“the
‘jurisdictional bar [of the Eleventh Amendment] applies regardless of the relief sought’”) (citing
Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100–01 (1984)); see also Cory v.
White, 457 U.S. 85, 90, (1982) (“It would be a novel proposition indeed that the Eleventh
Amendment does not bar a suit to enjoin the state itself simply because no money judgment is
sought.”).
Suits against a state agency or a state department are considered to be suits against a state
which are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. In re Kish, 221 B.R. 118, 124-25 (Bkrtcy. D. N.J.
1998) (quoting Geis v. Board of Educ. of Parsippany–Troy Hills, Morris Cnty., 774 F.2d 575,
580 (3d Cir.1985)); accord Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991); Haybarger v. Lawrence
County Adult Probation And Parole, 551 F.3d 193, 198 ("the Eleventh Amendment applies to
suits against subunits of the State") (citing Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 100). And suits against state
officials for acts taken in their official capacity must be treated as suits against the state. Hafer,
502 U.S. at 25.
"The Commonwealth [of Pennsylvania] vests judicial power in a unified judicial system,
and all courts and agencies of [that system] are part of the Commonwealth government rather

1

The Eleventh Amendment “enacts a sovereign immunity from suit, rather than a nonwaivable
limit on the federal judiciary's subject-matter jurisdiction.” Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of
Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 267 (1997).
2

than local entities." Haybarger, 551 F.3d at 198 (citing Benn v. First Judicial Dist. of Pa., 426
F.3d 233, 240-41 (3d Cir.2005) and Pa. Const. art. V, § 1)). It is likewise settled that
"Pennsylvania's judicial districts ... are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity." Id.
The Domestic Relations Section is a subunit of the Butler County Court of Common
Pleas, and thus it is a subunit of the Commonwealth's unified judicial system. See 42 Pa.C.S.A.§
961 (“Each court of common pleas shall have a domestic relations section . . .”); accord Chilcott
v. Erie County Domestic Relations, 283 Fed. Appx. 8, 10 (3d Cir. 2008) ("Furthermore, the
District Court properly dismissed the suit against the Erie County Prison and the Erie County
Domestic Relations Section of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas because the Eleventh
Amendment of the United States Constitution protects an unconsenting state or state agency
from a suit brought in federal court by one of its own citizens.").
The Butler County Domestic Relations Section is a subunit of the Butler County Court of
Common Pleas. The Butler County Court of Common Pleas is a state entity. Immunity attaches
to the actions of the Butler County Domestic Relations Section pursuant to the Eleventh
Amendment. Accordingly, plaintiff's claims against this entity must be dismissed.
s/ David Stewart Cercone
David Stewart Cercone
United States District Judge
cc:

Dy Pol
191 Neupert Road
Cabot, PA 16023
(Via First Class Mail)
Geri Romanello St. Joseph, Esquire
(Via CM/ECF Electronic Mail)

3