WILLIAM OF THE FAMILY RIGBY v. MILLER et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AS FRIVOLOUS with prejudice. This Order was sent via first class mail this date to pro se Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 1-30-18. (nam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM OF THE FAMILY RIGBY,
Plaintiff,

17cv1415
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

v.
TERRESSA D. MILLER in her official
capacity as Secretary of Pennsylvania
Department of Human Services Customer
Services, ROBERT PATRICK, JR. in his
official capacity as Director of The
Pennsylvania 42 U.S.C. 654(3) Bureau of
Child Support Enforcement, BETH
CECCHINI in her official capacity as
Director of Washington County Pennsylvania
Domestic Relations Section,
Defendants.

WILLIAM OF THE FAMILY RIGBY,
Plaintiff,

18cv0110
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

v.
PENNSYLVANIA 42 U.S.C. 654(3)
BUREAU OF CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT, ET AL.,
Defendants.

1

Memorandum Order Dismissing Two (2) Complaints
I.

Introduction
Pro se Plaintiff, who identifies himself as “William of the Family Rigby,” 1 has brought

two separate lawsuits alleging civil rights violations and conspiracies against several alleged
“wrongdoers,” naming family court/child support officials in Washington County, Pennsylvania,
and Washington County as whole, among other officials. Plaintiff’s Complaints appear to focus
on an appeal of child paternity and/or child support rulings made in Washington County. In both
lawsuits, Plaintiff seeks $5,000.00 from each Defendant (jointly and severally), plus punitive
damages, costs, and equitable relief. Plaintiff appears to allege that the Bureau of Child Support
Enforcement and the application of the IV-D program 2 somehow violated his rights, and on this
basis he brings a 10 count Complaint (in 17-cv-01415), and a 20 count Complaint (in 18-cv00110), alleging numerous claims including conspiracy, involuntary servitude and involuntary
slavery. These claims are clearly fanciful or frivolous and wholly without merit, and the Court
therefore dismisses both Complaints.
II.

Caselaw
Title 28 United States Code Section 1915A obligates the Court to review a prisoner’s

complaint as soon as practicable after docketing, and to dismiss the action if at any
time it appears, inter alia, that the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim. 28

Plaintiff has brought these lawsuits under a false or fictitious name, which the Court may dismiss on this
basis as well. K.W. v. Holtzapple, 299 F.R.D. 438 (M.D. Pa. July 10, 2014).
2
The Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff appears to be referencing Title IV of the Social Security Act,
which relates to Grants to State for Aid and Services to Needy Families with Children and for ChildWelfare Services, and specifically, Part D of Title IV relates to Child Support and Establishment of
Paternity.
1

2

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). It is important to note that Section 1915(e)(2) is not limited to pro se
prisoner suits. Powell v. Hoover, 956 F.Supp. 564 (M.D. Pa. 1997).
Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2) provides:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have
been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that–
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal-(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
The standard under which a district court may dismiss an action as frivolous under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(d) (the predecessor to section 1915 (e)(2)) was clarified by the United States
Supreme Court in Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). Dismissal is appropriate both when
the action is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory,” and when it posits “factual
contentions [that] are clearly baseless.” Id. at 327.
Where a complaint alleges facts that are “clearly baseless,” “fanciful,” or “delusional,” it
may be dismissed as frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992). If the pro se plaintiff
can cure the factual allegations in order to state a claim, the Court should grant him or her leave
to do so. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002). A determination
of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or
the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict
them. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (U.S. 1992)(citing Neitzke at 328).
III.

Conclusion
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s pending claims as contained in the two (2) recently filed

Complaints, the Court finds that the allegations of these Complaints are individually and

3

collectively fanciful, and frivolous and no amendment will be permitted for the current
Complaints, because no amendment could cure the deficiencies that require dismissal in these
cases.
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”). 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
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 likewise is settled that
“Pennsylvania's judicial districts . . . are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Id.
The Domestic Relations Section is a subunit of the Washington 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.").

4

The Washington County Domestic Relations Section, and its employees, while working
in their official capacity, is a subunit of the Washington County Court of Common Pleas.
Immunity attaches to the actions of the Washington County Domestic Relations Section, and its
employees, pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against these
individuals and entities must be dismissed. See Bryant v. Cherna, 520 F. App'x 55, 57 (3d Cir.
2013) ("[T]he state courts of Pennsylvania, including their domestic relations sections, are
entitled to immunity from suit in federal court pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment). See also
Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 211 F.3d 760, 772-73 (3d Cir. 2000)(citing Forrester
v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225 (1988)(the protections of judicial immunity extend to those officers
“who perform quasi-judicial functions.”).
Additionally, to the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to appeal the judgments of the
Washington County Domestic Relations Section (although he claims that this is not a complaint
about paying child support), the Court may abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91
S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), 3 and/or the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 4 Under RookerFeldman, the Court lacks jurisdiction when entertaining a federal court claim would be the
equivalent of an appellate review of a state court judgment. FOCUS v. Allegheny County Court
of Common Pleas, 75 F.3d 834, 840 (3d Cir. 1996). Here, it appears that if this Court were to
entertain the claims of Plaintiff herein, the Court would be essentially exercising an
impermissible appellate review of the support Order(s) of the Washington County Domestic
Relations Court, and would effectively be required to void the state court rulings; or, if there is
Three requirements must be met before Younger abstention is appropriate: (1) there must be an ongoing
state judicial proceeding to which the federal plaintiff is a party and with which the federal proceeding will
interfere, (2) the state proceedings must implicate important state interests, and (3) the state proceedings
must afford an adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional claims. Port Authority Police Benev. Ass’n
Inc., v Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Dept., 973 F.2d 169, 173 (3d Cir. 1992).
4
In 18-cv-00110, Plaintiff actually attaches information to his Complaint arguing that this action is not
barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
3

5

an ongoing judicial proceeding as in Younger, the Court could abstain from hearing these cases
under Younger as well. Because Plaintiff does not specifically reference the procedural posture
of the state court proceedings, the Court is unable to determine which abstention principal is
applicable here.
Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES the Complaints at docket nos. 17-cv-1415
and 18-cv-110 AS FRIVOLOUS and as without merit, because this Court lacks jurisdiction, and
because Defendants are immune from suit. Leave to amend is DENIED as futile.
The Clerk of Court shall therefore mark these dockets closed.

So Ordered, this 30th day of January, 2018
s/Arthur J. Schwab
The Honorable Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge, W.D. Pa.

cc:

All ECF Registered Counsel of Record
William of the Family Rigby
132 Smith Street
Canonsburg, PA 15317

6