Opinion
04 Civ. 09586 (GBD), 05 Civ. 00229 (GBD).
June 28, 2005
MEMORANDUM DECISION ORDER
Pro Se Appellant filed an Appeal in December 2004 from a dismissal of his adversary proceeding by the Bankruptcy Court, Cornelius Blackshear, J. Subsequently, on February 7, 2005, Appellee, The City of New York Support Collection Unit ("NYC SCU"), filed its responsive brief, and on April 20, 2005, Appellee Department of Child Support Services, ("DCSS") filed their Opposition to Plaintiff's 2004 Appeal.
Further, pro se Appellant filed another Appeal in January 2005 from a dismissal from the Bankruptcy Court of his separate adversary proceeding against two California Superior Court Judges (the "2005 Appeal"). The Appellees, the Honorable Henry Needham, Jr. and the Honorable Demetrio Agretelis, filed their responsive brief on February 10, 2005. This Court having carefully considered the briefs of all the parties and the record evidence, affirms the orders of dismissal of the Bankruptcy Court.
BACKGROUND
California Proceedings
In 1986, by stipulation and judgment entered against him, Appellant was ordered by the Superior Court of the State of California to pay $132 per month in child support and to reimburse the State of California for $3,914 for public assistance paid to Appellant's minor daughter. An Abstract of Judgment was issued on May 10, 1988. Pursuant to California law, the stipulated judgment was renewed in 1993. In 1994, Appellant moved to attack the judgment, and his motion was denied in 1995. He then moved to set aside the stipulated judgment, and this was denied in July 1997. His further appeal was denied in September 1997. In October 1997, Appellant's motion for reconsideration was denied.
Also in May 1997, Appellant filed a voluntary Chapter 13 petition in United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California ("California Bankruptcy Court"). In 1998 he filed a Complaint to Determine Dischargeability of Child Support Judgment Under section 523(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code. On the Trustee's motion to dismiss, the California Bankruptcy Court dismissed the Chapter 13 Petition. Appellant's adversary proceeding was also dismissed by the California Bankruptcy Court. The dismissal was subsequently upheld by the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit ("BAP") in 1999. In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Appellant's appeal from the BAP's order affirming the California Bankruptcy Court's dismissal.
The Ninth Circuit stated: "[Appellant] appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's ("BAP") order affirming the bankruptcy court's order dismissing his adversary proceeding which sought to discharge his child support debt and alleged a violation of his civil rights in connection with that debt." The Court held that "Because [Appellant's] adversary complaint sought to relitigate the merits of a prior state court decision, the bankruptcy court did not err by dismissing the adversary proceeding" and affirmed the BAP's decision. See Ocasio v. County of San Francisco (In re Ocasio), No. 99-17577, 2001 WL 569153, at * 1 (9th Cir. May 25, 2001).
In January of 1999, Appellant brought another adversary proceeding in the California Bankruptcy Court against Appellees, Judges of the Superior Court of the State of California, the Honorable Henry Needham, Jr. and the Honorable Demetrio Agretelis (retired). See Juan Carlos Ocasio v. Henry Needham, Jr., et al.(In re Ocasio) Adv. Proc. No.: 99-04016. The adversary proceeding was dismissed by the California Bankruptcy Court on March 4, 1999, and terminated on March 19, 1999. Appellant appealed the dismissal of that adversary proceeding in the United States District Court, Northern District of California ("California District Court"), and added as Appellee-defendant, the Bankruptcy Court Judge who presided over his case. This appeal was denied in October of 1999. Around December 23, 1999, Appellant appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit "the bankruptcy court order denying his motion to vacate its dismissal of an adversary proceeding alleging that three California superior court judges mishandled one of his cases." See Ocasio v. Needham, Jr. (In re Ocasio), No. 99-17633, 2001 WL 569151, at *1 (9th Cir. May 25, 2001). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the California District Court. Id.
After Appellant relocated from California to New York, the New York State Interstate Support Registry, registered, in April of 2003, the support order entered by the California Superior Court in 1986. Appellant sought to vacate the registration but it was confirmed by the Family Court of the State of New York (New York County) and the arrears were set at $33,231.03 plus interest.
2004 Appeal
In October 2003, Appellant filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 13 and an adversary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, Cornelius Blackshear, J. ("New York Bankruptcy Court"). In his adversary proceeding before the New York Bankruptcy Court, Appellant sought: (1) a declaration that the City of San Francisco's Department of Child Support Services SFDA-FSB and the City of New York Child Collection Unity have abrogated their Eleventh Amendment immunity; (2) damages against DCSS for alleged violations of Appellant's civil and due process rights; and (3) and a declaratory judgment that Appellant-Debtor's debt for child support arrears is dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5). The New York Bankruptcy Court issued the following orders in the case:
* On August 27, 2004, an order dismissing Appellant's Chapter 13 petition on the grounds of unreasonable delay by Appellant-Debtor that was prejudicial to creditors.
* Having dismissed Appellant's Chapter 13 proceeding, on September 27, 2004, the New York Bankruptcy Court issued an amended order declining to exercise discretionary jurisdiction over the ancillary adversary proceeding pursuant to In re Porges, 44 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 1995).
* Also on September 27, 2004, because Appellant continued to file adversary proceedings related to his dismissed Chapter 13 bankruptcy case, the New York Bankruptcy Court issued an order forbidding the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court from accepting unauthorized adversary proceeding filings related to the dismissed bankruptcy case.
* On October 30, 2004, the New York Bankruptcy Court issued an order granting the motions of the NYC SCU and DCSS dismissing the adversary proceeding.
The 2005 Appeal
In February 2004 Appellant then brought an adversary proceeding in the New York Bankruptcy Court titled, Juan Carlos Ocasio v. Ernest L. Bonner, et al. (In re Ocasio) In this proceeding Appellant alleged that the Appellee California Judges violated the Automatic Stay ( 11 U.S.C. § 362) by allegedly entering twelve orders while Appellant was subject to the jurisdiction of the California Bankruptcy Court. In March 26, 2004, the parties entered into a stipulation enlarging the time for Appellee Judges to answer or move to April 12, 2004. On March 29, 2004, Appellant moved for Default Judgment against the Appellee Judges.
There appears to be a previous similar California adversary proceeding which was dismissed by the California Bankruptcy Court. In Ocasio v. Bonner Medical Corp. (In re Ocasio), No. 00-15561, 2001 WL 583105, at *1 (9th Cir. May 30, 2001) the Ninth Circuit affirmed "the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order denying [Appellant's] motion to vacate its dismissal and reinstate his adversary proceeding."
After Appellant's Chapter 13 case was dismissed in the New York Bankruptcy Court, Appellant subsequently brought a new adversary proceedings adding another Judge of the California Superior Court and seeking an order awarding sanctions for violating the automatic stay. On June 8, 2004, the New York Bankruptcy Court issued the following orders:
* an order dismissing with prejudice the adversary proceeding captioned Juan Carlos Ocasio v. Ernest L. Bonner, et al. (In re Ocasio), and setting aside the notation of Default Judgment entered against the Appellee Judges.
* an order denying with prejudice Appellant's motion for a preliminary injunction.
DISCUSSION
A district court functions as an appellate court in reviewing judgments rendered by bankruptcy courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a); Abrass v. White, No. 03CV64ORL31 2003 WL 23009855, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 24, 2003). Appeals to a district court from an order of a bankruptcy court "shall be taken in the same manner as appeals in civil proceedings generally are taken to the courts of appeals from the district courts. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2). A bankruptcy court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo and its findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. See Gulf States Exploration Corp. v. Manville Forest Products Corp. (In re Manville Forest Products Corp.), 896 F.2d 1384, 1388 (2d Cir. 1990). Upon a de novo review of the instant matters, and based on the record evidence, the Bankruptcy Court's orders dismissing Appellant's adversary proceedings were proper, and are affirmed.Appellant is barred under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel from re-litigating his claims of child support debt/arrears dischargeability and alleged violations of his civil rights and due process. "[U]pon the generally recognized public policy that there must be some end to litigation and that when one appears in court to present his case, is fully heard, and the contested issues is decided against him, he may not later renew the litigation. . . ." Heiser v. Woodruff, 327 U.S. 726, 733, 66 S.Ct. 853 (1946) (citation omitted); see also Anaconda-Ericsson Inc. v. Hessen (In re Teltronics Services, Inc.), 762 F.2d 185, 190 (2d Cir. 1985) (stating that res judicata is a "principle of peace.") (citation omitted); California Wholesale Elec. Co. v. Crowley (In re Interstate Stores, Inc.), 558 F.2d 1046, 1047 (2d Cir. 1977) (citing Heiser, 327 U.S. at 735).
Other than naming Appellee NYC SCU, the 2004 Appeal is devoid of any allegations or specific facts on how they allegedly violated Appellant's civil rights and due process. On that alone, the New York Bankruptcy Court had proper basis to dismiss this claim against Appellee NYC SCU.
In the instant matters, courts of competent jurisdiction involving the same parties and their privies rendered final judgments on the merits of Appellant's action on the same cause of actions herein asserted. Thus, res judicata bars Appellant from re-litigating those same causes of action here. See In re Teltronics Services, Inc., 762 F.2d at 190; see also Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 2428, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981); Waldman v. Village of Kiryas Joel, 207 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir. 2000). Further, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, a party, or one in privity with a party, cannot re-litigate an issue that was previously decided. See Baldwin v. Kilpatrick (In re Baldwin), 249 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 2001); Genel Co., Inc. v. Bowen (In re Bowen), 198 B.R. 551, 555 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1996); accord NLRB v. Thalbo Corp., et al., 171 F.3d 102, 109 (2d Cir. 1999). Here, Appellant's identical issue, that his civil rights were violated, was actually litigated and necessarily decided in a prior proceeding. See Ocasio v. City and County of San Francisco et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California, No. 02-1600 (CW), Feb. 10, 2003. Thus, the New York Bankruptcy Court properly dismissed the adversary proceeding against DCSS and NY SCU for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
In his 2004 Appeal's Statement of Issues on Appeal, Appellant argues that the New York Bankruptcy Court erred in finding that DCSS and NYC SCU were entitled to sovereign immunity. Appellant's entire argument is futile. The Court need not resolve this issue because for the reasons articulated herein, Appellant is entitled to no relief of any kind on any of his claims.
Further, child support debt is generally not dischargeable in bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 1328(a) and 523(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. § 656(b); see also Falk Siemer, LLP v. Maddigan (In re Maddigan), 312 F.3d 589 (2d Cir. 2002).
Moreover, the claims brought against the California Appellee Judges are frivolous and are barred by absolute immunity. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 499-500, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991) (Scalia, J. concurring); see also Yaselli v. Goff, 12 F.2d 396, 404 (2d Cir. 1926) (stating that judges are "immun[e] from civil suits for damages arising from acts done by them in the course of the performance of their judicial functions. . . ."). Therefore, the New York Bankruptcy Court's orders on Appellant's 2005 appeal are also affirmed.
An independent review of Appellant's remaining issues as articulated in his Statement of Issues on Appeal for both his 2004 and 2005 appeals are found to be without merit.
On both of his appeals, Appellant has made numerous additional filings. All subsequent motions or applications filed in these Appeals are denied as moot and otherwise meritless. Therefore,
On Appellant's 2004 Appeal (docket No. 04Civ9586),
In its opposition papers to the 2004 Appeal, Appellee DCSS has requested that the "Appellant Should Be Charged With Sanctions and Declared a Vexatious Litigant for Repeatedly Filing Bad Faith claims Against the DCSS." This request is DENIED.
However, given the totally meritless nature of the claims which Appellant has continued to pursue, Appellant is put on notice that any further litigation of these frivolous claims in this Court, or any other court, will warrant the imposition of sanctions without any further warning.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Appellant's February 11, 2005, motion for an Order Consolidating Related Cases is DENIED,
ORDERED that Appellant's March 1, 2005, motion for an Order Awarding Sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against Beryl Crumpton, attorney for Defendant Child Services, and the City and County of San Francisco is DENIED,
ORDERED that the Appellant's May 31, 2005, motion for Oral Argument is DENIED On Appellant's 2005 Appeal (docket No. 05Civ0229),
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant's March 1, 2005, supplemented motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against Elaine Wallace, a solo practitioner in Oakland, California is DENIED,
ORDERED that Appellant's May 31, 2005, motion for an Order to Show Cause and Entry of Default Judgment against Appellees Ernest L. Bonner, Christin Winkler-Munoz, Elaine Wallace and Scott Gilpin (specifically Mr. Gilpin) is DENIED,
ORDERED that Appellant's May 31, 2005, motion for an Order to Show Cause and Entry of Default Judgment against Appellees Ernest L. Bonner, Christin Winkler-Munoz, Elaine Wallace and Scott Gilpin (specifically Dr. Bonner) is DENIED,
ORDERED that Appellant's May 31, 2005, motion for an Order to Show Cause and Entry of Default Judgment against Appellees Ernest L. Bonner, Christin Winkler-Munoz, Elaine Wallace and Scott Gilpin (specifically Ms. Winkler) is DENIED,
ORDERED that Appellant's June 8, 2005, motion for an order Amending the Case Caption to add to the caption of the case, Ernest L. Bonner, Christin Winkler-Munoz, Elaine Wallace and Scott Gilpin and motion for a Scheduling Order are DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the New York Bankruptcy Court are AFFIRMED. Both appeals (docket Nos. 04Civ9586 and 05Civ0229) are dismissed in their entirety.
SO ORDERED.