Opinion
No. 1:02CV00280
November 13, 2002
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This case is now before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #5]. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Although the Plaintiff named the El Paso County Child Support Enforcement Unit as the sole defendant, the Plaintiff served Policy Studies, Inc. with the Summon and Complaint. Policy Studies, Inc. is a private company that administers the child support enforcement system through a contract with El Paso County. The Defendant assumes that the Plaintiff has incorrectly named the Defendant.
I.
The facts, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, are as follows. Nina M. Patterson and Floyd Patterson were married on August 20, 1979. They have two sons: Shaun Patterson, who was born on October 7, 1980 and Christopher Patterson, who was born on November 4, 1981. In 1983, Nina Patterson and Floyd Patterson initiated a dissolution of marriage action in the District Court of El Paso County, Colorado and were separated pursuant to a Separation Agreement in 1984. A Decree of Dissolution of Marriage was entered by the El Paso County District Court on January 16, 1985.
The Decree outlined Floyd Patterson's child support obligation. On March 30, 1989, the General Court of Justice, District Court Division, Forsyth County, North Carolina, issued an Order that acknowledged the Colorado proceeding and ordered Floyd Patterson to pay his child support obligation and any amount in arrears. On April 5, 2000 a Child Support Termination Order was filed in the General Court of Justice, District Court Division, Forsyth County, North Carolina. A Verified Entry of Support Judgment from the District Court of El Paso County, was entered on October 22, 2001, which stated that Plaintiff was in arrears in the amount of approximately $22,691.70.
Patterson wrote a letter to the State of Colorado Division of Child Support Enforcement appealing the determination that he was in arrears in his child support payments. Pursuant to an Order/Notice to Withhold Income for Child Support dated March 5, 2002, the Child Support Enforcement Unit instructed Patterson's employer to withhold his wages starting in March 2002. Approximately $275.08 has been withheld, thus far, from Plaintiff's wages. Patterson was not afforded a court hearing to challenge the Order/Notice.
II.
The Defendant filed a 12(b)(1) motion on May 28, 2002. The Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, did not file a response within twenty days and did not ask for an extension of time, so Defendant's motion will be treated as uncontested. M.D.N.C.L.R. Civ. P. 7.3(k).
When a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is raised as to the factual basis for subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction. Richmond, Fredericksburg Potomac R. Co. v. U.S., 945 F.2d 765, 786 (4th Cir. 1991).
III.
The Rooker Feldman doctrine holds that lower federal courts, in general, do not have subject matter jurisdiction to review state court decisions. Safety-Kleen, Inc. v. Wyche, 274 F.3d 846, 857 (4th Cir. 2001). A federal court is prohibited from reviewing the decisions rendered by both the state's highest court and the state's lower courts.Jordahl v. Democratic Party, 122 F.3d 192, 199 (4th Cir. 1997).
In addition, lower federal courts are generally barred not only from considering issues actually presented to the state court, but also from hearing constitutional claims that are "inextricably intertwined with questions ruled upon by a state court." Allstate Ins. Co. v. West Virginia State Bar, 233 F.3d 813, 816 (4th Cir. 2000) (quoting Plyler v. Moore, 129 F.3d 728, 731 (4th Cir. 1997)). A federal claim is inextricably intertwined if success on the federal claim depends on a lower federal court's determination that the state court's decision on the issues before it was wrong. Safety-Kleen, 274 F.3d at 858.
In this case, the Plaintiff bases his federal claim on actions that occurred during a state court proceeding for arrears in child support payments. The Plaintiff states that he is appealing the Order/Notice to Withhold Income for Child Support that was issued on March 5, 2002, and the subsequent withholding of his wages. In essence, the Plaintiff's claim is that the Colorado state court was wrong to withhold money from his paycheck.
The Plaintiff's claim is inextricably intertwined with the state court's ruling. The decision to withhold the Plaintiff's wages was directly at issue in the state court proceedings. The Plaintiff's success on his federal constitutional claim depends on a determination that the state court's decision to withhold his wages was wrong. Therefore, the merits of the Colorado state court proceeding are directly relevant to his claim.
Judicial errors in the state court system are for correction in the state court system, at the head of which stands the United States Supreme Court. Haley v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688, 691 (5th Cir. 1986). Therefore, the Plaintiff should have raised his contentions in proceedings in the Colorado state court system, including the Colorado Court of Appeals and the Colorado Supreme Court.
IV.
Therefore, under the Rooker Feldman doctrine this court lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case and the motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) is GRANTED.