Opinion
CASE NO. 1:20 CV 2423
02-24-2021
MARIO D. BLUE, Plaintiff, v. CSEA, Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pro se Plaintiff Mario D. Blue filed this action against CSEA (Child Support Enforcement Agency) claiming the garnishment of his wages to satisfy his child support obligation is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2). That Application is denied.
This is the fifth action Plaintiff has filed in this court contesting the collection of his child support obligation. In his first action, Plaintiff sued the Juvenile Court Judge who issued his child support order, the Appellate Court Judges who upheld the order and the prosecutors who brought the action. That action was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as well as judicial and prosecutorial immunity. The second action, Blue v. Dept. of Treasury, No. 1:19 CV 1926 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 27, 2019)(Barker, J.) was filed in state court and removed to federal court. He contested the withholding of his income tax refund to offset his child support arrearage. That action was dismissed sua sponte on the merits of the claims. At the same time, he filed Blue v. Dept. of Treasury, No. 1:19 CV 1926 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 27, 2019)(Barker, J.) in this federal court asserting the same claims. That action was dismissed as duplicative. In his fourth action, Blue v. Wendy R., No. 1:20 CV 134 (N.D. Ohio May 4, 2020)(Oliver, J.), Plaintiff sued a Bureau of Worker's Compensation employee to contest the attachment of his Worker's Compensation benefits to offset his child support obligation as a violation of the FDCPA. That action was dismissed on the merits as frivolous. Judge Oliver also noted Plaintiff's history of repetitive frivolous filings challenging the collection of his child support obligation and cautioned Plaintiff that he could be denied the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in future actions filed in this court pertaining to his child support obligation. Undeterred, Plaintiff filed this action, again claiming that the collection of his child support is a violation of the FDCPA.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 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. Plaintiff may reopen this action by first paying the full filing fee of $402.00 and then filing a Motion to Reopen the case. The Clerk's Office shall not accept any documents or motions in this case unless and until the filing fee has been paid in full.
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ _________
DAN AARON POLSTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE