# Blue v. Ryan

> District Court, N.D. Ohio · October 31, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10367714

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** October 31, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10367714

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming the district court’s decision that it “lacked jurisdiction to review the support orders of the Geauga County Common Pleas Court”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

MARIO D. BLUE, ) Case No.: 1:19 CV 962
)
Plaintiff ) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
)
v. )
)
MICHAEL J. RYAN, et al., )
) MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendants ) AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff pro se Mario Blue brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants
Michael Ryan, David Basinksi, Mary Kilbane, Holley Madigan, Mary Bush, Latina Baily-Williams,
Amy McClurg, and Charles Hannan (collectively “Defendants”), alleging that they violated his Fifth
Amendment rights under the United States Constitution with respect to a child support order issued
by the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed with this
case in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), and that motion is granted.
For the reasons that follow, this action is dismissed.
II. BACKGROUND
According to the Complaint, defendant Ryan is employed as a judge for the Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division (“Juvenile Court”), and defendant Basinski is
employed as a visiting judge for that same court. (ECF No. 1 at 2). Defendant Kilbane is employed
as a judge for the Ohio Eighth District of Appeals. (Id.). Defendants Madigan and Bush are
employed as magistrates for the Juvenile Court. (Id. at 3). Defendants Bailey-Williams, McClurg,
and Hannan are employed as assistant prosecutors for Cuyahoga County. (Id. at 3-4).

Throughout the Complaint, Plaintiff refers to “CSEA” but does not specify to what this
acronym refers. Given the context and a child support payment history attached to the Complaint,
it appears that CSEA refers to Cuyahoga County’s Child Support Enforcement Agency. (See id. at
18-21).
The Complaint also refers, without explanation, to a “IV-D” contract. Attached to the
Complaint is Administrative Code § 5101:12-1-80. (Id. at 13-17). This administrative code section
describes the process by which a CSEA may enter into a IV-D contract with a governmental or

private entity to provide IV-D services and obtain federal financial reimbursement to offset the cost
of purchasing services under a IV-D contract. (Id. at 13, ¶ A).1

1 The court may take judicial notice of records and information located on government websites
because they are self-authenticating. See Maxberry v. Univ. of Kentucky Med. Ctr., 39 F. Supp. 3d
872, 875 n.5 (E.D. Ky. 2014) (citations omitted). According to the website of Cuyahoga County
Job and Family services, IV-D refers to: “ A title of the Social Security Act relating to individuals
that participate in child support or spousal support services that are available by application or
though participation in other benefit programs which establish and enforce a child support
obligation.” See https://cjfs.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/ocss-glossary.aspx. Title IV of the Social
Security Act may be found at https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0400.htm. Part D of
Title IV is titled “Child Support and Establishment of Paternity.” “A ‘Title IV-D case’ commonly
refers to cases in which the child support enforcement agency is enforcing the child support order
pursuant to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 88 Stat. 2351 (1975), 42 U.S.C. § 651, as
amended.” Williams v. Wayne Cty. Friend of Court, No. 16-12888, 2017 WL 3944393, at *1 n.1
(E.D. Mich. July 14, 2017), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Williams v. Wayne Cty.
Friend of the Court, No. 16-12888, 2017 WL 3913936 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 6, 2017), reconsideration
denied sub nom. Williams v. Wayne Cty. Friend of Court, No. CV 16-12888, 2017 WL 6815019
(E.D. Mich. Oct. 6, 2017).

-2-
The claims in this case arise from a child support order issued by Ryan in the Juvenile Court
on June 1, 2017. Plaintiff filed multiple motions and actions in the Juvenile Court and Eighth
District Court of Appeals to obtain relief from that order, none of which were successful. See id. at
10-11. Plaintiff’s claims in this action pertain to Defendants’ respective roles in the various state

court proceedings concerning the child support order, and he levels the same allegation against each
defendant. That is, they violated his Fifth Amendment right by taking his property “due to the
private obligation and agreement established with [the defendant], the CSEA and IV-D contract [for]
services [defendant] was paid to provide independently while using” their authority in their
respective positions as judges, magistrates, and county attorneys. (See e.g. id. at 5).
For relief, Plaintiff asks this court to (1) terminate the June 1, 2017 child support order; (2)
return unlawfully garnished and obtained property totaling $20,758.05; and (3) award a money

judgment of $20,000.00 from each defendant. (Id. at 10).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the court is required to dismiss an
in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted, lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from such relief. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Sistrunk v. City of

Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). While the court must construe the pleading in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff, Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th
Cir. 1998), the court is not required to conjure unpleaded facts or construct claims against a
-3-
defendant on behalf of a pro se plaintiff. See Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 577 (6th Cir. 2008)
(citation omitted); Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277-78 (4th Cir. 1985).
A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised upon an indisputably
meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.

The dismissal standard for Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) articulated in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) also governs dismissal for failure to
state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). A cause
of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks plausibility in the
complaint. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 564. A plausible pleading must contain a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief on the assumption that all of the allegations
in the complaint are true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78.

Further, a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)
if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and has an independent obligation to determine whether subject
matter jurisdiction exists. Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999)
B. Analysis
1. Younger abstention
It is unclear whether the state court proceedings regarding the child support order remain
pending or are concluded. In either event, the court must dismiss this action.
If state court proceedings remain pending, then the court must not interfere with those

proceedings. Under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), a federal court must abstain from
interfering in state court proceedings if: “(1) state proceedings are on-going; (2) the state
proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate
-4-
opportunity to raise federal questions.” Lenard v. City of Cleveland, Case No. 1:17 CV 440, 2017
WL 2832903 at *4 (N.D. Ohio June 30, 2017) (citing Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State
Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)). In this case, Plaintiff may, and has, availed himself of various
state court proceedings regarding the child support order. There are no allegations in the Complaint

that the available state court proceedings do not afford Plaintiff an adequate opportunity to raise the
constitutional claims he raises here. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 14 (1987) (the
burden is on plaintiff to demonstrate that state law prevents him from raising his federal claims in
state court) (citations omitted). Moreover, child welfare and protection is unquestionably an
important state interest. Meyers v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 23 F. App’x 201, 204-05
(6th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, the requirements of Younger are satisfied and, to the extent that state court

proceedings concerning the child support order remain pending, the court may not interfere with
those proceedings and this action is dismissed.
2. Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives the court of jurisdiction
If the state court proceedings concerning the child support order have concluded, the court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff sought to vacate the child support order
in numerous state court proceedings, none of which were successful. (See ECF No. 1 at 9-10).
Plaintiff now asks this court to terminate the child support order. But the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
forbids federal district courts from entertaining what is essentially an appeal of state court

proceedings. That is, a losing party in state court may not ask a federal district court to review and
reject a state court judgment even when, as here, Plaintiff claims that the state court’s action was
unconstitutional. See Dakota v. Brown, No. 3:12 CV 2110, 2012 WL 5378733, at *5 (N.D. Ohio

-5-
Oct. 31, 2012) (citing Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483 n.16
(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923)); see also Patmon v. Michigan
Supreme Court, 224 F.3d 504, 509-510 (6th Cir. 2000) (Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal
district courts lack jurisdiction to determine the validity of state court judgments, as well as

constitutional claims “inextricably intertwined” with state court decisions.) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff asks this court to terminate the Juvenile Court’s child support order and refund
wages and personal property taken to fulfill his child support obligations, and is precisely the kind
of challenge to a state court decision that is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Rowe v. City
of Detroit, 234 F.3d 1269 (Table) (6th Cir. 2000) (“Because Rowe’s complaint seeks federal court
review of state court orders regarding child support, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes the
exercise of federal jurisdiction.”) (citing Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486; Rooker, 263 U.S. at 415-16); see

also Belock v. Burt, 19 F. App’x 323, 324 (6th Cir. 2001) (affirming the district court’s decision that
it “lacked jurisdiction to review the support orders of the Geauga County Common Pleas Court”).
Only the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction to consider appeals of state court judgments.
United States v. Owens, 54 F.3d 271, 274 (6th Cir. 1995) (“A party raising a federal question must
appeal a state court decision through the state system and then directly to the Supreme Court of the
United States.”) (citing Feldman and Rooker).
Accordingly, to the extent that state court proceedings concerning the child support order
have concluded, the court lacks jurisdiction over this matter and it is dismissed pursuant to §

1915(e)(2)(B) and Rule 12(b)(1).

-6-
3. Defendants are immune from suit
Finally, even if this action were not subject to dismissal pursuant to Younger or Rooker-
Feldman, the case would nevertheless be dismissed because Defendants are immune from suit.
Defendant judges and magistrates are entitled to judicial immunity. Absolute judicial immunity

attaches where a judicial officer acts in his or her official judicial capacity, that is, a function
normally performed by a judge. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362 (1978). The actions of
defendants Ryan, Basinksi, Kilbane, Madigan, and Bush described in the Complaint with respect to
the child support order are well within their role as judicial officers, and there are no allegations that
plausibly suggest any of the judicial defendants lacked jurisdiction or acted outside of their judicial
function. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (a judge is not immune from liability for
nonjudicial actions or for actions taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction) (citations

omitted). Therefore, defendants Ryan, Basinksi, Kilbane, Madigan, and Bush are immune from suit
and dismissed from this action. Cikraji v. Messerman, No. 1:13CV2059, 2014 WL 2965281, at *5-6
(N.D. Ohio June 30, 2014) (judges and magistrates issuing child support orders in a county where
the CSEA is the local Title IV-D agency are entitled to absolute judicial immunity).
Also entitled to immunity for their roles with respect to the child support order are defendant
assistant county prosecutors Bailey-Williams, McClurg, and Hannan, and they are also dismissed
from this action. See Johnson v. Hutcheson, No. 3:15CV00320, 2015 WL 5679637, at *4 (S.D. Ohio
Sept. 28, 2015) (recommending that § 1983 claims against Greene County assistant prosecutor be

dismissed because she is entitled to immunity for actions in connection with plaintiff’s child support
case) (citing Eldridge v. Gibson, 332 F.3d 1019, 1021-22 (6th Cir. 2003)), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 3:15CV00320, 2015 WL 6391214 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 21, 2015).

-7-
IV. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted but, for the reasons
stated above, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Rule 12(b)(1).
The court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision

could not be taken in good faith.2
IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

October 31, 2019

2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not taken in good
faith.
-8-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10367714. Public record. Not legal advice.