Frederick of Family Gonora v. Office of Child Support Services, 072419 FED3, 19-1804
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM.|
|Party Name:||FREDERICK OF THE FAMILY GONORA, Appellant v. OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES; MONMOUTH COUNTY NEW JERSEY; MONMOUTH COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; MONMOUTH COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS; MONMOUTH COUNTY DIVISION OF SOCIAL SERVICES; MONMOUTH COUNTY CLERK OF COURT; ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS AND THE DIVISION OF FAMILY DEVELOPMENT; FAMILY DIV...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: KRAUSE, SCIRICA, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges|
|Case Date:||July 24, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) July 5, 2019
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 3-18-cv-03793) District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan
Before: KRAUSE, SCIRICA, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
Frederick Gonora appeals the District Court's order, abstaining from exercising jurisdiction and dismissing Gonora's civil rights action. We will affirm.
Gonora filed his amended complaint, alleging various violations of his civil rights by the Office of Child Support Services (OCSS) and Monmouth County, among others. Specifically, Gonora appeared to challenge the services provided by the Child Support Enforcement Program, Title IV-D, 42 U.S.C. § 651, et seq., an administrative program that helps enforce child support orders. OCSS and Monmouth County ultimately filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
The District Court held that Gonora's claims were barred by the Younger abstention doctrine. Applying this Court's reasoning in Anthony v. Council, 316 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 2003), the District Court held that the requirements for Younger abstention were met because Gonora's child support obligations were part of an ongoing state court proceeding. Thus, the District Court abstained from exercising jurisdiction and dismissed the case. Gonora timely appealed.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292. We review the legal determinations of whether the requirements for
Younger abstention have been met de novo. Anthony, 316 F.3d at 417. "If the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP