Smith v. Ala. Dep't of Human Res. Child Support Div.

• Decision Date: 03 June 2016
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00629-KD-N
• Parties: THADDEUS D. SMITH, SR., Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama

THADDEUS D. SMITH, SR., Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF HUMANRESOURCES CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00629-KD-N

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

June 3, 2016

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This action is before the Court on the motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Doc. 12) and separate supporting brief (Doc. 13) filed by the Defendant State of Alabama Department of Human Resources Child Support Division (hereinafter, "ADHR"). Plaintiff Thaddeus D. Smith, Sr., proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (see Doc. 7), has timely filed a response (Doc. 16) in opposition to the motion, and ADHR has timely filed a reply (Doc. 17) to the response. The motion to dismiss is now under submission (see Doc. 14) and is ripe for disposition.

Under S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(b), the motion to dismiss has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for entry of a report and recommendation as to the appropriate disposition, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(1), and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(S). Upon consideration, and for the reasons stated herein, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that ADHR's motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) be GRANTED, though under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) rather than 12(b)(6). The undersigned further RECOMMENDS, to the extent Smith is asserting claims against "Ms. Y. Anderson" in his complaint, that those claims be DISMISSED sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) & (iii).

I. Background¹

On December 14, 2015, Smith initiated this action by filing a Complaint (Doc. 1) with the Court, asserting causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Smith alleges, in short, that ADHR, in particular through its officer/employee "Ms. Y. Anderson" with the Mobile County office of ADHR's Child Support Enforcement Division, has repeatedly attempted to collect child support from Smith that he does not owe.

More specifically, Smith alleges that ADHR has "unjustly harassed and extorted for monies that were already being paid to the state along with arrearages on all cases" by "continuously collecting monies [from Smith] over the amount theywere entitled." Smith attaches as "Exhibit 1" to his complaint a letter dated November 23, 2015, with the subject "Notice of Past Due Child Support," sent to Smith by "Ms. Y. Anderson" with the Mobile County office of ADHR's Child Support Enforcement Division.² The letter states:

The Child Support Enforcement Division is authorized to collect child support on behalf of your child(ren).

Our records indicate that no child support payment has been made for at least 30 days, or that the amount of past due support has become equal to one month's payment. Please remit your payment within five days. If you are unable to pay what you owe, please contact this office immediately.

If payment has already been made, please disregard this notice.

...

Please notify this office of your new employer so that an income withholding order can be entered in your case(s). Failure to provide this information may result in a referral of the case to the IV-D attorney for possible court proceedings.

Citing to this letter, Smith alleges "Ms. Anderson is still trying to collect on a case that is closed and only due arrearage..."

Smith also sent a letter to the Bay Haas Building, where the Mobile office of the Child Support Division is located, which was returned to him as "not deliverable as addressed" and with the handwritten notation "return to sender." (See Doc. 1 at 7 [Complaint Exhibit 2]). On the basis of this returned letter, Smith claims "that the State of Alabama also conspired with the Child Support Division with the BayHaas Building to aid in violating the Plaintiffs [sic] right to due process with mail tampering[,]" and that there was "conspiracy between the Child Support Divisions and the Child Support Division at the Bay Haas Building ..." Specifically, Smith "believes that Ms. Anderson with the Mobile Child Support Division had already received their [sic] and gave notice to someone with the Bay Haas Division to not receive their letter which explained [Smith's] inability to pay and was second proof of trying to be in compliance with the system" by "inform[ing] the State of Alabama Child Support Division that [he] had lost [his] job and willingly gave the information needed to retrieve [his] child support funds from [his] unemployment[,]" leaving him "sixty-six dollars a week to survive on."

Ms. Anderson has also "repeatedly extorted money from" Smith when his two child support cases "emancipated and the law stated [Smith] had the right to request the payments stop for those cases. However, Ms. Anderson and the Mobile Child Support Division purportedly took "almost six months" to stop deducting payments for those cases from Smith's payroll, "in spite of the numerous request [sic] to cease those payments..."³ Ms. Anderson has also "sought to have [Smith] arrested for payments that were currently being made it was found to be a clerical era [sic] and the warrant was canceled..."⁴ Ms. Anderson purportedly "has taken aspecial interest and extra time for extreme measures in an attempt to help Ms. Davis harass [Smith]."⁵ Smith has requested that ADHR appoint him counsel to dispute the Child Support Division's actions but has not been offered any.⁶

Smith alleges that ADHR has violated his rights under the Fifth, Eight, and Fourteen Amendments of the United States Constitution and demands monetary relief and "any other relief that may be appropriate, including injunctive orders..." Liberally construing Smith's complaint, the undersigned finds that it alleges causes of action against both ADHR and its employee "Ms. Anderson."⁷,⁸

II. Analysis

a. ADHR is Immune from Suit on Smith's Claims

ADHR argues that Smith's claims against it are due to be dismissed because, inter alia, it is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution for claims under § 1983.

Eleventh Amendment immunity bars suits by private individuals in federal court against a state unless the state has consented to be sued or has waived its immunity or Congress has abrogated the states' immunity. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363-64, 121 S. Ct. 955, 962, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001); Cross v. Ala. Dep't of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 49 F.3d 1490, 1502 (11th Cir. 1995). "This bar exists whether the relief sought is legal or equitable." Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 276, 106 S. Ct. 2932, 2939, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986). The Eleventh Amendment applies when "the State or one of its agencies or departments is named as the defendant...." Id. (quotation marks omitted). That is, Eleventh Amendment immunity "is available 'only' to states and arms of the states." Walker v. Jefferson Cty. Bd. of Educ., 771 F.3d 748, 751 (11th Cir. 2014).

Congress has not abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity in § 1983 cases. Carr v. City of Florence, 916 F.2d 1521, 1525 (11th Cir.1990). Furthermore, the State of Alabama has not agreed to be sued for violations of an individual's civil rights. See Ala. Const. art. I, § 15 ("[T]he State of Alabama shall never be made defendant in any court oflaw or equity."); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782, 98 S. Ct. 3057, 3057-58, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978) (citing Ala. Const. art. I, § 14, now codified as § 15). Thus, if [DHR] an "arm of the state," Eleventh Amendment immunity bars [Smith]'s § 1983 action.

Whether an entity is an "arm of the state" is determined by considering four factors: (1) how the state law defines the entity; (2) the degree of state control over the entity; (3) where the entity derives its funds; and (4) who is responsible for judgments against the entity. Walker, 771 F.3d at 751-53.[⁹]

Nichols v. Ala. State Bar, 815 F.3d 726, 731-32 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (footnote omitted).

Considering these four factors, the undersigned finds that ADHR is properly considered an arm of the State of Alabama that enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity.¹⁰ As to the first factor ("how the state law defines the entity"), under Alabama Code § 38-2-1, the Alabama legislature authorized the creation of "a State Department of Human Resources..." (emphasis added). The state legislature has also specifically delegated to ADHR the power to "operate child support programs." Ala. Code § 38-10-3. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Alabama has repeatedly found ADHR to be a state agency entitled to sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Ex parte Ala. Dep't of Human Res., 999 So. 2d 891, 895-96 (Ala. 2008); Burgoon v. Ala. StateDep't of Human Res., 835 So. 2d 131, 133 (Ala. 2002); Ex parte Mobile Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 815 So. 2d 527, 530 (Ala. 2001).

As to the second factor ("the degree of state control over the entity"), ADHR's "chief executive officer," the Commissioner of Human Resources, is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of a Board of Human Resources consisting of the Alabama governor and six other members appointed by the governor. See Ala. Code §§ 38-2-2, 38-2-3(a)-(b). The express "aim" of ADHR is "the promotion of a unified development of welfare activities and agencies of the state and of the local governments so that each agency and each governmental institution shall function as an integral part of a general system." Id. § 38-2-6. To that end, "[t]he state board, in conference with the commissioner, shall be responsible for the adoption of policies, rules and regulations for its government and for the government of the state department[,]" and "all administrative and executive duties and responsibilities of the state department shall be performed by the commissioner, subject to the authority of the state board." Id. § 38-2-3(b). As to the third factor ("where the entity derives its funds"), ADHR is funded by state legislative appropriations, with the commissioner required to submit an annual budget to the...