Opinion
Civil Action 21-549
04-30-2021
ZACHARY R. GRAHAM, As a Matter of an Ex Parte Petition for Intervention by Plaintiff, v. LANAISHA FREELAND Defendant.
District Judge Arthur J. Schwab Magistrate
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RE: ECF NO. 6
MAUREEN P. KELLY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated below, it is respectfully recommended that the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Zachary R. Graham (“Plaintiff”) be dismissed, sua sponte, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims.
II. REPORT
A. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Greene (“SCI-Greene”) in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff initiated this matter by submitting a Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and Complaint, which were received by this Court on April 26, 2021. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff's IFP motion was granted on April 28, 2021. ECF No. 4. The Complaint was filed on April 29, 2021. ECF No. 6.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that the mother of Plaintiff's minor daughter has taken their daughter out of Pennsylvania - most recently to South Carolina. ECF No. 6 ¶¶ 7 and 11-13. Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff never consented to moving the child from Pennsylvania, and opposes such a move. Id. ¶¶ 17 and 19. Plaintiff alleges that the child's mother has exposed the child to unsafe and unhealthy conditions. Id. ¶¶ 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16.
Plaintiff seeks the intervention of the federal courts in this matter because the state courts of Pennsylvania have not provided timely relief. Id. ¶ 21. While the specific relief that Plaintiff seeks is not explicitly spelled out in the Complaint, Plaintiff also attaches a self-styled “Motion for an Ex Parte Demand for a Hearing De Novo, ” in which Plaintiff demands:
(a) a hearing to determine if a situation is at a level where an emergency custody listing should be granted pending the outcome of the de novo hearing and until all further proceeding [sic] are finished.
(b) a hearing to determine whether its [sic] in the childs [sic] best interest to stay out of state or be brought back to Pennsylvania.
(c) a hearing to determine if defendants [sic] custody be [sic] taken and given to defendants [sic] mom who consents to that and is willing to testify to that.ECF No. 7 at 2-3.
B. Applicable Legal Standard
28 U.S.C. § 1915 establishes the criteria for allowing an action to proceed IFP. Section 1915(e) requires the federal courts to review complaints filed by persons that are proceeding in forma pauperis and to dismiss, at any time, any action that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Thus, a court must dismiss, sua sponte, a complaint that lacks arguable merit in fact or law. Stackhouse v. Crocker, 266 Fed.Appx. 189, 190 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)).
The standard for reviewing a complaint under this Section 1915(e)(2)(B) is the same as that for determining a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999); see also Banks v. Mozingo, No. 08-004, 2009 WL 497572, at *6 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2009) (Cercone, J.). Under that Rule, dismissal is appropriate if, reading the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and accepting all factual allegations as true, no relief could be granted under any “reasonable reading of the complaint” Phillips v. Cnty of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008). Additionally, when reviewing the complaint, it is not proper for a court to assume that “the [plaintiff] can prove facts which [he or she] has not alleged, or that the defendants have violated the . . . laws in ways that have not been alleged.” Assoc.'d Gen. Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).
C. Analysis
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 418 (3d Cir. 2010). Because subject matter jurisdiction is non-waivable, courts have an independent obligation to satisfy themselves of jurisdiction if it is in doubt. See Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977). “A necessary corollary is that the court can raise sua sponte subject-matter jurisdiction concerns.” Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc., 347 F.3d 72, 76-77 (3d Cir. 2003). See also Citizens United Reciprocal Exch. v. Meer, 321 F.Supp.3d 479, 485 (D.N.J. 2018).
In this case, Plaintiff does not explicitly allege a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction in the Complaint. However, the two potential bases for this Court to assert jurisdiction are federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
With respect to federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff does not allege facts that, if true, would support the conclusion that any of the claims in the Complaint arise under federal law. To the contrary, Plaintiff explicitly insists that the Complaint is not bought pursuant to Section 1983 or as a Bivens action. ECF No. 6 ¶ 1.
Instead, the only conceivable basis for jurisdiction would be diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. But the relief sought by Plaintiff - an order that would affect the custody of Plaintiff's minor child - precludes diversity jurisdiction under the so-called “domestic relations exception.” This doctrine is “an exception to federal diversity jurisdiction, ” and it “encompasses only cases involving the issuance of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree.” Matusow v. Trans-County Title Agency, LLC., 545 F.3d 241, 245 (3d Cir. 2008). See also Dougherty v. Adams-Dougherty, No. 15-8541, 2016 WL 5219460 at *4 n.4 (D.N.J Sept. 21, 2016) (“The ‘domestic relations exception' divests federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees. Instead, to challenge these orders, [plaintiff's] proper recourse is to follow the normal appellate procedures in the New Jersey state court system.” (internal citation omitted)).
Upon review of the Complaint and the documents submitted therewith, it is clear that Plaintiff seeks to have this Court intervene in a custody dispute involving Plaintiff's minor child, and to issue an order affecting that custody. Thus, diversity jurisdiction is barred by the domestic relations exception.
Based upon review of the Complaint, it does not appear that this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. As such, this action should be dismissed pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Muchler v. Greenwald, 624 Fed.Appx. 794, 799 (3d Cir. 2015); see also McCall v. Amazon, No. CV 20-1926, 2020 WL 7607970, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2020) (dismissing a case pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) where the court lacked jurisdiction). Further, as it is apparent that Plaintiff cannot cure the jurisdictional issues in the Complaint, leave to amend would be futile, and dismissal should be with prejudice. See Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 251 (3d Cir. 2007).
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the reasons set forth above, it respectfully is recommended that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, as this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Objections are to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011). Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.