Chapman v. Maycock

• Decision Date: 23 December 2021
• Docket Number: 21-cv-4940 (KAM)(JRC)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
• Parties: MALACHI CHAPMAN, Plaintiff, v. TOSHANA MAYCOCK, Defendant.

MALACHI CHAPMAN, Plaintiff, v. TOSHANA MAYCOCK, Defendant.

No. 21-cv-4940 (KAM)(JRC)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

December 23, 2021

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MATSUMOTO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On September 15, 2021, pro se Plaintiff Malachi Chapman (“Plaintiff”), a resident of Brooklyn, New York commenced this action against pro se Defendant Toshana Maycock, also a resident of Brooklyn, New York, and the mother of his child.^[1] (ECF No. 1, Complaint (“Compl.”).) Plaintiff has paid the Court's filing fee to initiate this action. (ECF No. 2, Filing Fee.) For the reasons discussed below, the Complaint is dismissed.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this section 1983 action for alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 249, Hate crime acts; 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy against rights; 18 U.S.C. § 242, Deprivation of rights under color of law; 18 U.S.C. § 371 Conspiracy to commit offenses or to defraud United States; 31 U.S.C. § 3729, False claims; and 18 U.S.C. § 1506 Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 5, 46‒61.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has failed to comply with family court orders setting forth conditions of parental behavior, has been late when dropping off and picking up their child, and has filed frivolous lawsuits against Plaintiff in family court. (Id. ¶¶ 13-17.) Plaintiff seeks to set aside family court orders of protection and child support. (Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff submitted 314 pages of supporting documents, including a copy of Title IV of the Social Security Act. (See ECF Nos. 1-2; 1-3.). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief.

LEGAL STANDARD

A complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Matson v. Bd. of Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of New York, 631 F.3d 57, 63 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se complaint is held “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); see Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that even after Twombly, the Court “remain[s] obligated to construe a pro se complaint liberally”).

Federal court jurisdiction exists only when a “federal question” is presented, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or when there is “diversity of citizenship” and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (citing Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)). When a federal court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Plaintiff's allegations, even liberally construed, fail to state claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Moreover, federal courts lack jurisdiction over ongoing domestic relations matters. In addition, based on the complaint, diversity jurisdiction is lacking as Plaintiff alleges that he and Defendant both reside in Brooklyn, New York.

Even if Plaintiff has paid the required filing fee, a district court may dismiss the case, sua sponte, if it determines that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, or the action is frivolous. Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh Street Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Hawkins-El III v. AIG Fed. Sav. Bank, 334 F. App'x. 394, 395 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming district court's sua sponte dismissal of fee paid frivolous complaint).

DISCUSSION

I. The Complaint Fails to State a Federal Claim

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 18 U.S.C. § 249; 18 U.S.C. § 241; 18 U.S.C. § 242; 18 U.S.C. § 371; 31 U.S.C. § 3729; and 18 U.S.C. § 1506, and invokes a number of purported constitutional violations. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 5, 46‒61.) However, “[s]imply raising a federal issue in a complaint will not automatically confer federal question jurisdiction.” Perpetual Sec, Inc. v. Tang, 290 F.3d 132, 137 (2d Cir. 2002). Rather, a court must “proceed prudently and make pragmatic distinctions between those allegations, if any, that raise substantial questions” and those that are “so patently without merit as to justify . . . the court's dismissal for want of jurisdiction.” Id. (quoting Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Env't Study Grp., 438 U.S. 59, 70 (1978)). There is no subject matter jurisdiction if the purported federal claim is clearly “‘immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction' or is ‘wholly insubstantial and frivolous.'” S. New Eng. Tel. Co. v. Glob. NAPs Inc., 624 F.3d 123, 132 (2d Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Here, even given a liberal construction, and despite Plaintiff's reference to many federal statutes and purported constitutional rights, his allegations do not support a colorable federal claim such that the Court's federal question jurisdiction may be invoked.

A colorable section 1983 claim requires that a plaintiff allege two elements: (1) that the conduct challenged “must have been committed by a person acting under color of state law.” Cornejo v. Bell, 592 F.3d 121, 127 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Pitchell v. Callan, 13 F.3d 545, 547 (2d Cir. 1994)); and (2) that the conduct complained of “must have deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Id.; see also Snider v. Dylag, 188 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir. 1999).

The Constitution regulates only the conduct of government actors and not that of private parties. Ciambriello v. Cnty. of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307, 323 (2d Cir. 2002) (citing Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1002 (1982)). Private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful, is generally beyond the reach of section 1983. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999); cf. Brentwood Acad. v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001) (“state action may be found if, though only if, there is such a ‘close nexus between the State and the challenged action' that seemingly private behavior ‘may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.'”) (quoting Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 351 (1974)).

For Plaintiff to successfully allege a section 1983 claim, he must first establish that the conduct of the named Defendant is “fairly attributable to the State.” American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 526 U.S. at 50. In other words, for Plaintiff to show that his constitutional rights have been violated, he “must first establish that the challenged conduct constitutes ‘state action.'” See Ciambriello, 292 F.3d at 323 (citing United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., 941 F.2d 1292, 1295‒96 (2d Cir. 1991)). Private individuals who are not state actors may nonetheless be liable under section 1983, however, if they have conspired with or engaged in joint activity with state actors. Anilao v. Spota, 340 F.Supp.3d 224, 253 (E.D.N.Y. 2018); Stewart v. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC, 851 F.Supp.2d 442, 445 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). Stating a claim for joint action or conspiracy with state actors requires more than conclusory allegations and naked assertions. The complaint must set forth a plausible theory of agreement and concerted action to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights. Stewart, 851 F.Supp.2d 445‒46.

Plaintiff's section 1983 claim fails because Defendant is a private individual and Plaintiff has failed to plead a plausible claim for joint action or conspiracy between Defendant and state actors. Washington v. Williams, No. 19-cv-00289(MKB), 2019 WL 1876787, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2019). Here, the Complaint states nothing more than bare and unsupported allegations of a conspiracy between Defendant, a private individual, and family court referees. (See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 19 (“both the referees have conspired against my rights to profit off Title IV D, which is also infringement because of the illegal seizure of one's property protected under the 4th amendment.”).) These allegations fall short of what is necessary to support a claim of joint action or conspiracy with state actors and thus impose individual liability under section 1983. Accordingly, neither 42 U.S.C. § 1983 nor the other federal statutes cited are applicable and cannot be cited in a conclusory manner to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

II. Domestic-Relations Abstention

The Supreme Court has recognized a domestic relations exception to subject matter jurisdiction that “divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees.” Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992); Tait v. Powell, 241 F.Supp.3d 372, 376 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2017). The domestic relations exception arises from the Supreme Court's recognition that “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states, and not to the laws of the United States, ” In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890). The Second Circuit has held that though the domestic relations exception does not apply where the district court's subject matter jurisdiction is predicated on a federal question,...