Opinion
CIVIL NO. 3:18-CV-2143
03-14-2019
ILEANA RIVERA, Plaintiff v. LACKAWANNA COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION, et al. Defendants
(MANNION, D.J.) ()
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
I. INTRODUCTION
Presently before the Court is a civil lawsuit initiated by pro se Plaintiff Ileana Rivera ("Plaintiff") against Defendants Enforcement Administration for Child Support of San Juan Puerto Rico and the Lackawanna County Domestic Relations Section. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges there are "undistributed payments" in the total amount of $3,153 on two child support cases involving her daughter, J.R. (Doc. 1, p. 2). I construe Plaintiff's Complaint as asserting the following claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (1) violation of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 651 et seq.; and (2) violation of Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law. As relief, she states:
Account #0330464 for $1,345 [Puerto Rico]; and Account #812111054 for $1808 [Pennsylvania].
I deserve explanation on a solution. Also, I request for audit of the account sentence square and check index.
I request the . . . help to the 41FSA-SDU and OCSE. For lack of knowledge and skill I cannot do more on this issue.(Doc. 1, p. 2).
Along with her Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting leave of court to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 2), which was granted, (Doc. 6).
On November 21, 2018, I issued an Order informing Plaintiff that, after conducting an initial screening review of her complaint I concluded that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Doc. 6). In that Order, I explained the defects in Plaintiff's Original Complaint and gave her leave to cure those defects by filing an amended complaint on or before December 21, 2018. Id. Plaintiff was also advised that the failure to file an amended complaint may result in the dismissal of her entire case. Id.
To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Original Complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED pursuant to with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). II. INITIAL REVIEW OF PRO SE COMPLAINTS
This Court has a statutory obligation to conduct a preliminary review of pro se complaints brought by litigants given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Specifically, I am obliged to review the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides, in pertinent part:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that -
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal--
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
In performing this mandatory screening function, the Court applies the same standard that is used to evaluate motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a complaint should be dismissed for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has observed the evolving standards governing pleading practice in the federal courts, stating that "pleading standards have seemingly shifted from simple notice pleading to a more heightened form of pleading, requiring a plaintiff to plead more than the possibility of relief to survive a motion to dismiss." Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 209-10 (3d Cir. 2009). "[A] complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief." Id. at 211. It also "has to 'show' such an entitlement with its facts." Id.
To test the sufficiency of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must conduct the following three-step inquiry:
First, the court must "tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1947. Second, the court should identify allegations that, "because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Id. at 1950. Finally, "where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief." Id.Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010).
A complaint filed by a pro se litigant is to be liberally construed and '"however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Nevertheless, "pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim." Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013). Thus, a well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere legal labels and conclusions. Rather, a pro se complaint must recite factual allegations that are sufficient to raise the Plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation, set forth in a "short and plain" statement of a cause of action. III. DISCUSSION
Both of Plaintiff's claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. "Section 1983 imposes civil liability upon any person who, acting under the color of state law, deprives another individual of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Shuman v. Penn Manor School Dist., 422 F.3d 141, 146 (3d Cir. 2005). "It is well settled that § 1983 does not confer any substantive rights, but merely 'provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.'" Williams v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm'n, 870 F.3d 294, 297 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Hildebrand v. Allegheny Cty., 757 F.3d 99, 104 (3d Cir. 2014)). To establish a claim under § 1983, Plaintiff must establish a deprivation of a federally protected right and that this deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. Woloszyn v. County of Lawrence, 396 F.3d 314, 319 (3d Cir. 2005).
A. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE IV-D OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
In her first claim, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated her rights under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 651 et seq. (Doc. 1, p. 1). Title IV-D of the Social Security Act "requires states to establish comprehensive programs and automated data processing for child support enforcement . . . as conditions for receiving state grants for services for needy families with children and child welfare services." Franks v. Waguespack, No. 2:14-cv-1733, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121944 at *26-27 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2015) (internal quotations omitted). As explained on the Pennsylvania Child Support Program's website:
The IV-D program is grounded in both federal and state statutes as well as judicial rules and procedures. The bureau of Child Support Enforcement (BSE) within the Department of Human Services (DHS) is the single state agency charged with administrating the IV-D program in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The federal statutory
basis for the program is U.S. Public Law 93-647, Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. The state statutory basis is in Title 23 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Annotated (23 Pa. C.S.A.).Laws & Legislation, PA Child Support Program, available at https://www.humanservices.state.pa.us/ (last viewed November 20, 2018).
The policies and procedures that govern most aspects of the child support program in Pennsylvania are the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 45 CFR, Parts 232 and 301-308; Chapter 55 of the Pennsylvania Code; and the Pennsylvania Rules of Court, Actions for Support in the Rules of Civil Procedure, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Rule 1910 et seq. Additionally, existing policies and procedures may be affected by case law as well as court and judicial proceedings.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated her rights under Title IV-D because they failed to comply with 45 C.F.R. § 303.7. (Doc. 1, p. 1). Plaintiff provides no facts in support of this allegation beyond her claim that she is owed $3,153 in child support payments that were not disbursed by Defendants.
Section 303.7 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations addresses the provision of services by State IV-D agencies in intergovernmental programs. It outlines the general operational responsibilities of State IV-D agencies, their obligations when interacting with other State IV-D agencies, the requirement to maintain a central registry to transmit information, the responsibilities of "initiating" State IV-D agencies (the agency to which an individual applied for services or is receiving services), and the responsibilities of responding State IV-D agencies.
An Intergovernmental IV-D case "means a IV-D case in which the noncustodial parent lives and/or works in a different jurisdiction than the custodial parent and child(ren) that has been referred by an initiating agency to a responding agency for services. An intergovernmental IV-D case may include any combination of referrals between States, Tribes, and countries. An intergovernmental IV-D case also may include cases in which a State agency is seeking only to collect support arrearages, whether owed to the family or assigned to the State." 45 C.F.R. § 301.1; See 45 C.F.R. § 303.1 (explaining that the definitions in 45 C.F.R. § 301.1 apply to 45 C.F.R. § 303 et seq.).
Dismissal of this claim is warranted because the Complaint fails to comply with the basic injunction that: "[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. It is well-settled that: "[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint contain 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and that each averment be 'concise, and direct,' Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)." Scibelli v. Lebanon County, 219 F.App'x 221, 222 (3d Cir. 2007). Thus, dismissal is appropriate when a complaint would leave "the defendants having to guess what of the many things discussed constituted [a cause of action];" Binsack v. Lackawanna County Prison, 438 F. App'x 158 (3d Cir. 2011), or when the complaint is so "rambling and unclear" as to defy response. Tillio v. Spiess, 441 F. App'x 109 (3d Cir. 2011). Similarly, dismissal is appropriate in "'those cases in which the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.'" Id. at 110 (quoting Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir.1995)); Tillio v. Northland Grp. Inc., 456 F. App'x 78, 79 (3d Cir. 2012).
It is not clear from the face of the complaint what right under Title IV-D Plaintiff alleges was violated. Given the absence of a more specific allegation this Court cannot determine whether the right Plaintiff claims was violated is enforceable under Section 1983. In addition, Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient detail about the facts underlying her claim. For example, she does not clearly identify with sufficient particularity for this Court to determine what action, if any, was undertaken by each Defendant. Plaintiff fails to identify: (1) to whom, if anyone, J.R.'s father pays support; and (2) who disburses the funds. She also does not explain how Defendants failed in the many obligations outlined in 45 C.F.R. § 303.7.
Section 1983 provides a remedy for violations of federal rights, but not merely for violations of any federal law. Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 341 (1997). As such, a Plaintiff must assert a violation of a federal right to seek redress under section 1983. In Blessing, the Court identified three (3) factors necessary to find such a right: (1) that Congress intended the provision to benefit the plaintiff; (2) that the right Plaintiff claims is protected by the statute is not so "vague and amorphous" that its enforcement would strain judicial competence; and (3) that the provision imposes a binding obligation on the state. Id.
B. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAIM
Plaintiff also appears to allege that her right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was violated. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the deprivation of the right to procedural due process, Plaintiff must allege that: "(1) [she] was deprived of an individual interest that is encompassed within the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of 'life, liberty, or property,'"; and "(2) the procedures available to [her] did not provide 'due process of law.'" Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225, 234 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107, 116 (3d Cir. 2000)).
Plaintiff clearly alleges that she was deprived of property-specifically money in the amount of $3,153. (Doc. 1, p. 1). She does not, however, provide any information about: (1) what procedures Defendants made available for people like Plaintiff who did not receive the full amount of what they believe to be their full child support payment; or (2) whether Plaintiff attempted use these procedures. Plaintiff also does not explain why she believes these procedures are inadequate.
The Federal Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") and the Office of Child Support Enforcement ("OSCE") oversee child support enforcement programs administered in each state. The federal child support program involves 54 states and territories and over 50 tribes. Each entity has its own unique laws and procedures. However, each state plan is based on the program standards and policy set by the federal government and must be approved by the OSCE. One such requirement is that:
National Conference of State Legislators, Child Support 101, State Administration, available at http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/child-support-adminstration/default.aspx (last viewed November 20, 2018).
(a) Each State must have in place an administrative complaint procedure, defined by the State, in place to allow individuals the opportunity to request an administrative review, and take appropriate action when there is evidence that an error has occurred or an action should have been taken on their case. This includes both individuals in the State and individuals from other States.45 C.F.R. § 303.35.
(b) A State need not establish a formal hearing process but must have clear procedures in place. The State must notify individuals of the procedures, make them available for recipients of IV-D services to use when requesting such a review, and use them for notifying recipients of the results of the review and any actions taken.
In Pennsylvania, an individual may informally resolve concerns about the staff, practice, or quality of service by writing to the Director of the Domestic Relations Section who is managing his or her case. However, if the individual has contacted the Director of the Domestic Relations Section managing the case and has unresolved concerns, he or she may write to the OCSE. The OCSE will assist by contacting the Domestic Relations Section to help resolve any concerns. This is the simplest and most efficient way to seek reimbursement.
The website for Pennsylvania's Department of Human Services has a description of the process. FAQ question 10 states:
General FAQ #10. I have concerns with the quality of service being given to me by the Domestic Relations Section. Who can I contact? You may write to the Director of the Domestic Relations Section that manages your child support case to present concerns regarding office staff, office practices, and/or the quality of service provided.
Additionally, under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act ("PSTCA"), local governmental units are given broad tort immunity. Sanford v. Stiles, 456 F.3d 298, 315 (3d Cir. 2006). The statute contains eight (8) exceptions. Relevant to this case, liability can be imposed for " . . . (2) the care, custody or control of personal property in the possession or control of a local agency . . . ." Id. Thus, it appears Plaintiff may have a state court remedy under the PSTCA against Lackawanna County DRS.
Plaintiff's due process claim cannot proceed because she has not alleged whether she attempted to resolve this disbursement issue by exhausting her administrative or state court remedies by sending a letter to the Director of the Domestic Relations Section managing her case, bringing her concerns to the attention of the OCSE, or filing a State law claim.
[The next page contains the Recommendation]
IV. RECOMMENDATION
It is RECOMMENDED that:
(1) Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without further leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.Date: March 14, 2019
(2) The Clerk of Court should close this case.
BY THE COURT
s/William I . Arbuckle
William I. Arbuckle
U.S. Magistrate Judge
NOTICE OF LOCAL RULE 72.3
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.Date: March 14, 2019
BY THE COURT
s/William I . Arbuckle
William I. Arbuckle
U.S. Magistrate Judge