De La Cruz et al v. Irizarry et al

Filing 86

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 10 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs have failed to show that there is subject-matter jurisdiction under Ex Parte Young, or that they have a viable equal protection claim. Plaintiffs' complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Signed by Judge Jose A Fuste on 7/8/2013.(mrj)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

1
2
3

MARICARMEN DE LA CRUZ, et al.,

4

Plaintiffs,

5

v.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Civil No. 12-1837 (JAF)

IDALIA COLON-RONDON, Secretary
of the Family Department of P.R.;
ROSABELLE PADIN-BATISTA,
Administrator of the Child Support
Administration of P.R.,
Defendants.

13

OPINION AND ORDER

14
15

On April 12, 2013, we entered an opinion and order, (Docket No. 57), granting in

16

part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).1

17

(Docket No. 10.) We found that neither the writ of mandamus statute, nor § 1983, nor § 667

18

confers subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. (Docket No. 57.) We ordered the parties

19

to brief the question whether Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-60 (1908), confers

20

jurisdiction. (Id.) We also ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why their equal protection

21

claims should not be dismissed. (Id.) In our previous order, we provided clear instructions

22

to Plaintiffs. To show that Ex Parte Young jurisdiction is proper in this case, Plaintiffs were

23

ordered to provide arguments under the relevant First Circuit precedent, Rosie D. Ex. Rel.

1

Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss. (Docket No. 11.)

-2-

Civil No. 12-1837 (JAF)
1

John D. v. Swift, 310 F.3d 230 (1st Cir. 2002). We also laid out the basic requirements for

2

stating a viable equal protection claim.2 (Docket No. 57.)

3

The parties have both filed briefs to comply with our order. (Docket Nos. 77; 79.)

4

Plaintiffs have also filed an amended complaint. (Docket No. 83.) Despite our clear

5

instructions to Plaintiffs, they have failed to show cause as to why this case should not be

6

dismissed. It is well-established that “[w]hen a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of

7

federal subject matter jurisdiction, ‘the party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court

8

carries the burden of proving its existence.’” Johansen v. United States, 506 F.3d 65, 68

9

(1st Cir. 2007) (citing Murphy v. United States, 45 F.3d 520, 522 (1st Cir. 1995)). Plaintiffs

10

have failed to show that there is Ex Parte Young jurisdiction, or that they have a viable

11

equal protection claim. We, therefore, dismiss Plaintiffs’ case.

12

I.

13

Discussion

14

A.

Ex Parte Young

15

The Ex Parte Young doctrine allows federal courts, “notwithstanding the absence of

16

consent, waiver or evidence of congressional assertion of national hegemony, [to] enjoin

17

state officials to conform future conduct to the requirements of federal law.” Swift, 310 F.3d

18

at 234 (quoting Lane v. First Nat’l Bank, 871 F.2d 166, 172 n. 5 (1st Cir. 1989)). The First

19

Circuit made clear in Swift that “[i]n determining whether a statute’s remedial provisions

20

preclude prospective injunctive relief under the doctrine of Ex parte Young, the proper test

21

involves an inquiry into Congress’s intent.” See Swift, 310 F.3d at 237 (providing that

22

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 74-75 (1996), and Verizon Maryland,
2

For a more detailed discussion of this case, see our earlier opinion and order of April 12, 2013.
(Docket No. 57.) Here we discuss only the items that remained pending after our earlier opinion.

-3-

Civil No. 12-1837 (JAF)
1

Inc. v. Com’n of Maryland, 535 U.S. 602, 635 (2002) are the “clear guideposts” for

2

conducting this inquiry).

3

“remedial scheme is sufficiently comprehensive to indicate that Congress intended to

4

foreclose such relief.” Id. at 238.

More specifically, courts must inquire whether a statute’s

5

After careful consideration, we now conclude that the Family Support Act of 1988,

6

Pub. L. No. 100-485, 102 Stat. 245 (as codified at 42 U.S.C. § 667), contains sufficient

7

indications of Congressional intent to foreclose Ex Parte Young jurisdiction. We begin our

8

analysis by considering the statute that Plaintiffs seek to enforce. See Swift, 310 F.3d at 237

9

n.4 (instructing courts to look primarily at statutory text).

10

42 U.S.C. § 667 provides:
Each State, as a condition for having its State plan approved under
this part, must establish guidelines for child support award amounts
within the State. The guidelines may be established by law or by
judicial or administrative action, and shall be reviewed at least once
every 4 years to ensure that their application results in the
determination of appropriate child support award amounts.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Id. The word “plan” refers to a plan under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families

19

Program (“TANF”), administered by the United States Department of Health and Human

20

Services (“HHS”) pursuant to Title IV–A of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 601–619.

21

See Administracion del Sustento de Menores v. Dep’t of Health & Human Serv., 588 F.3d

22

740, 742 (1st Cir. 2009). The TANF program provides block grants, also known as State

23

Family Assistance Grants, to eligible states. Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 603(a)(1)). To be

24

eligible for these block grants, states must operate child support enforcement programs—

25

that is, programs designed to locate non-custodial parents, establish paternity, and obtain

-4-

Civil No. 12-1837 (JAF)
1

child and spousal support—in accordance with Title IV–D of the Social Security Act. Id.

2

(citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 651– 669b; 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(2)). Puerto Rico participates in the

3

TANF program.3 Id.

4

Title IV–D imposes performance standards and reporting requirements on states as a

5

condition of funding. Id. HHS enforces these standards and requirements. Id. HHS has

6

promulgated a regulation reiterating the requirement that states review their child support

7

guidelines every four years. 45 C.F.R. § 302.56. In Puerto Rico, the Administrator of the

8

Child Support Administration is responsible for reviewing these guidelines every four years,

9

pursuant to Puerto Rico’s Special Child Support Act, 8 L.P.R.A. §§ 501 et seq., and the

10

Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, 3 L.P.R.A. §§ 2101 et seq.

11

This detailed scheme contains sufficient indications of Congress’s intent to foreclose

12

Ex Parte Young jurisdiction for suits by private parties. Section 667 makes clear that a

13

state’s compliance with the statute is a condition for approval of its “plan.” This section of

14

the statute does not make any mention of private enforcement.

15

specifically designates HHS as the entity responsible for enforcing states’ compliance with

16

the TANF program. The scheme makes fairly clear that a state’s failure to comply with the

17

statute is remedied by HHS enforcement rather than private party suits.

Id.

Section 652(a)

18

The legislative history of the Family Support Act of 1988 reinforces this conclusion.

19

While it increased the federal role in child support enforcement, Congress remained “very

3

Puerto Rico is treated as a state for purposes of the TANF program, 42 U.S.C. § 619(5), and Title
IV–D of the Social Security Act, id. § 1301(a)(1).

-5-

Civil No. 12-1837 (JAF)
1

sensitive to [the] major State role as it developed this legislation.” S. Rep. No. 100-377

2

(1988), at 13-14, reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2791-2792. In view of the historic,

3

primary role of states in administering welfare programs, Congress “continue[d] this long-

4

standing approach of a Federally supported and guided, but State-administered and partially

5

State-financed program.” Id. Such deferential language reinforces our sense that Congress

6

did not wish for federal courts to insert themselves in these state administrative functions.

7

See id.

8
9

Moreover, narrow restrictions apply to the other sections of Title IV-D that do
authorize suits in federal court. Section 660 provides that:
The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction,
without regard to any amount in controversy, to hear and
determine any civil action certified by the Secretary of Health
and Human Services under section 652(a)(8) of this title. A
civil action under this section may be brought in any judicial
district in which the claim arose, the plaintiff resides, or the
defendant resides.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Id. Section 652(a)(8), in turn, makes clear that states, not private parties, are the only

19

entities which can apply to HHS for authorization to bring suit in federal court, and only

20

upon narrow conditions. See id. (requiring that HHS “receive applications from States for

21

permission to utilize the courts of the United States to enforce court orders for support

22

against noncustodial parents.”).

23

approved only “upon a finding that (A) another State has not undertaken to enforce the court

24

order of the originating State against the noncustodial parent within a reasonable time, and

Section 652(a)(8) provides that applications may be

Civil No. 12-1837 (JAF)

-6-

1

(B) that utilization of the Federal courts is the only reasonable method of enforcing such

2

order.” Id.

3

In drafting Title IV-D, therefore, Congress created a detailed remedial scheme that

4

carefully restricts access to federal courts. We will not override Congress’s will by

5

exercising Ex Parte Young jurisdiction in this case. Appellate courts have similarly rejected

6

attempts by private individuals to bring suit under §§ 667 and 660. See Blackston v. State

7

of Alabama, 30 F.3d 117, 119 (11th Cir. 1994) (affirming district court’s conclusion that

8

“42 U.S.C. § 667 (1988) did not create a right enforceable by the plaintiffs in federal

9

court”); see also Hexamer v. Foreness, 981 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding no jurisdiction

10

under § 660 unless the Secretary has provided certification.).

11

It is important to note that Defendants do not deny having a responsibility to comply

12

with § 667. Puerto Rico has already complied with the first sentence of § 667, which

13

requires states to “establish guidelines for child support award amounts.” § 667.

14

Defendants, who took office following the elections of 2012, also acknowledge their

15

obligation to ensure that the guidelines are reviewed every four years. (Docket No. 77 at

16

14.) In fact, as Plaintiffs acknowledge, Defendants have already stated publicly that they

17

have begun the process of review. (Docket Nos. 52; 52-1; 77.) The Administrator of the

18

Child Support Administration, Rosabelle Padín-Batista, has stated that before her agency

19

finalizes its review of the guidelines, her agency will likely assess all of the economic

20

studies performed by the prior administration, and hold public hearings.4 (Docket No. 52.)

4

Yamilet Millán Rodríguez, Para Largo Nuevas Tablas de ASUME, EL VOCERO, March 20, 2013, at
6. (See Translation at Docket No. 55-1.)

Civil No. 12-1837 (JAF)

-7-

1

Plaintiffs respond that Defendants’ plans are unnecessary and inject needless delay

2

into the proceedings. (Id.) Plaintiffs’ contention may or may not be correct, as a matter of

3

prudential judgment. But these kinds of disputes—about how quickly a state agency should

4

implement its own regulations, or which economic models are best suited for the task at

5

hand—are not the sort of questions that federal courts are designed to arbiter. See Rizzo v.

6

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378 (“Where, as here, the exercise of authority by state officials is

7

attacked, federal courts must be constantly mindful of the ‘special delicacy of the

8

adjustment to be preserved between federal equitable power and State administration of its

9

own law.’”) (internal citations omitted). For these reasons, we find that there is no Ex Parte

10

Young jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim.

11

B.

Equal Protection

12

In their motion to dismiss, Defendants argued that Plaintiffs failed to establish

13

subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1983 because they failed to state a viable equal

14

protection violation.

15

motion as a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,5 we found the core of

16

their argument to be that Plaintiffs failed to state any claim for relief and, thus, better

17

considered under Fed. R. 12(b)(6), not 12(b)(1). See Wright & Miller, 5B Federal Practice

18

and Procedure § 1350 (“Nor, as many courts have noted, should a motion under Rule

19

12(b)(1) be confused with a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state a

20

claim for relief under federal or state law because the two are analytically different.”).

21

Noting the grave deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ claim, we ordered Plaintiffs to show cause as to

(Docket No. 10 at 9-11.) Although Defendants characterized their

Defendants’ motion was titled “Motion To Show Cause And To Dismiss For Lack of Jurisdiction.”
(Docket No. 10.)
5

Civil No. 12-1837 (JAF)

-8-

1

why their equal protection claim should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Docket

2

No. 57.)

3

Following our order to show cause, (Docket No. 57), Plaintiffs then filed a brief and

4

an amended complaint. (Docket Nos. 79; 83.) Plaintiffs also filed an opposition after

5

Defendants first argued in their motion to dismiss that Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims

6

were invalid. (Docket Nos. 10; 11.) Plaintiffs have thus had several opportunities to

7

respond to Defendants’ clear challenge. Still, none of Plaintiffs’ filings comes close to

8

stating a viable equal protection claim. See Coyne v. City of Somerville, 972 F.2d 440, 445

9

(1st Cir. 1992) (“To survive a motion to dismiss, an equal protection claim must outline

10

facts sufficient to convey specific instances of unlawful discrimination.”) (internal quotation

11

marks and citations omitted). A viable equal protection claim must allege that “compared

12

with others similarly situated, [Plaintiffs were] selectively treated . . . based on

13

impermissible considerations such as race, religion, intent to inhibit or punish the exercise

14

of constitutional rights, or malicious or bad faith intent to injure a person.” Tapalian v.

15

Tusino, 377 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2004) (quoting Barrington Cove Ltd. P’ship v. Rhode Island,

16

246 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2001)).

17

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint does not meet these basic requirements. It does not

18

mention any impermissible discrimination. See id. Nor does Plaintiffs’ amended complaint

19

show that Plaintiffs meet the similarly-situated requirement. See Barrington, 246 F.3d at 7

20

(calling it “essential” that Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that it and its comparators were

21

similarly situated “in all relevant respects.”) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted).

-9-

Civil No. 12-1837 (JAF)
1

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint also fails to allege any “gross abuse of power.” See Tapalian,

2

377 F.3d at 6 (“Normally, such a plaintiff must establish more than that the government

3

official's actions were simply arbitrary or erroneous; instead, the plaintiff must establish that

4

the defendant's actions constituted a ‘gross abuse of power.’”) (quoting Baker v. Coxe, 230

5

F.3d 470, 474 (1st Cir. 2000)). Compared with other cases of gross abuse of power,

6

Plaintiffs’ allegations are clearly insufficient. See, e.g., Rubinovitz v. Rogato, 60 F.3d 906,

7

912 (1st Cir. 1995) (discussing a “malicious orchestrated campaign causing substantial

8

harm”). Nor do we see any allegations that rise to the level of “fundamental procedural

9

unfairness.” See Pagan v. Calderon, 448 F.3d 16, 34-35 (1st Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).

10

Therefore, we find that Plaintiffs have failed to state a viable equal protection claim.

11

II.

12

Conclusion

13

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED.

14

(Docket No. 10.) Following our order, (Docket No. 57), Plaintiffs have failed to show that

15

there is subject-matter jurisdiction under Ex Parte Young, or that they have a viable equal

16

protection claim. Plaintiffs’ complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 8th day of July, 2013.

19
20
21

s/José Antonio Fusté
JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE
United States District Judge