Opinion
Case No. 1:03-CV-2 DB
February 14, 2003
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Michael Anthony Whitesell filed suit against the State of Utah and Box Elder County, Utah, alleging violation of his civil rights in state child custody proceedings. The case was referred to the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and is presently before the court on the State's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated in the course of state judicial proceedings relating to a child custody dispute. In particular, he alleges that he was improperly denied custody of his children. He further alleges a denial of Due Process based on his failure to receive the state court's custody ruling which prevented him from appealing the court's decision; and on changes in court hearing dates which made it impossible for him to attend hearings. In addition, he complains that the individual appointed as guardian ad litem for his children was also the Box Elder County prosecuting attorney, and generally alleges that the state proceedings were not "just, right, or reasonable." Plaintiff asks this court to award him full custody of his children as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
Plaintiff has not specifically invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a statutory basis for his claim, although Defendant seems to assume that Plaintiff is asserting a section 1983 claim, Given that pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), plaintiff's allegations may be characterized as seeking redress for constitutional violations under section 1983. See Roman-Nose v. New Mexico Dep't of Human Servs., 967 F.2d 435, 437 (10th Cir. 1992); Olson v. Hart, 965 F.2d 940, 942 (10th Cir. 1992). Nevertheless, it is clear that plaintiff's claims may not be maintained in this court.
Eleventh Amendment Immunity
Unless the state has consented, the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against a state in federal court. Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n. 14 (1985). Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974). No consent to suit by the State of Utah exists in this case. Furthermore, it is well settled that a state is not a "person" within the meaning of section 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 26 (1991); Harris v. Champion, 51 F.3d 901, 905-06 (10th Cir. 1995).
Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
Plaintiff's claims are also barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Although Plaintiff attempts to raise a constitutional issue, this case is essentially a child custody dispute in which Plaintiff seeks to have this court reverse the custody decision of the Utah courts. It is well settled that federal district courts do not have authority to review decisions of state courts where the relief sought is in the nature of appellate review. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Anderson v. Colorado, 793 F.2d 262, 263 (10th Cir. 1986). No federal court other than the United States Supreme Court can reverse or modify the judgment of a state court because to do so would be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Rooker, 263 U.S. at 416; Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482.
If a constitutional question arises in the course of a state case, it is the duty of the state courts to decide it. If it is decided wrongly, the litigant must appeal to the appropriate state court. Rooker, 263 U.S. at 415. Where a constitutional issue could have been reviewed on direct appeal by the state appellate courts, a party may not seek to have the state court judgment reversed or modified by bringing a constitutional claim under section 1983. Anderson, 793 F.2d at 263. Tn other cases involving similar fact situations, courts have held that federal district courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to review state court child custody determinations. Roman-Nose, 967 F.2d at 437;Anderson, 793 F.2d at 263; Staley v. Ledbetter, 837 F.2d 1016 (11th Cir. 1988); Hale v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688 (5th Cir. 1986).
Since plaintiff is basically asking this court to reverse a state court custody decision, this court is without subject matter jurisdiction. If plaintiff has any remedy, it is in the state court appellate process and the United States Supreme Court. See Anderson, 793 F.2d at 264. Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint against the State of Utah should be dismissed.
Habeas Corpus
Plaintiff has also filed a document entitled, "Writ of Habeas Corpus" (file entry 3), in which he asks the court to set aside any and all judicial orders in his state case. Again, plaintiff is simply asking this court to overturn the determinations of the state court, a remedy outside the jurisdiction of this court. It is well settled that federal habeas corpus may not be used to challenge state custody decisions. Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Servs. Agency, 458 U.S. 502 (1982);Roman-Nose, 967 F.2d at 436; Anderson, 793 F.2d at 263.
Box Elder County
In the caption of the complaint, Plaintiff named Box Elder County as a defendant, apparently because the state court proceedings occurred in the First Judicial District Court, Box Elder County, State of Utah. The complaint contains no specific allegations against Box Elder County, and it is clear from the complaint that any claim against Box Elder County is based upon the custody decision in the state court. Since this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to review state court judgments as discussed above, Plaintiff's complaint against Box Elder County should be dismissed as well.
Plaintiff's Motions
Plaintiff has filed a number of motions and papers in this case including a "Motion to Appoint Counsel" (file entry 2), a "Writ of Habeas Corpus" (file entry 3), a request under the Freedom of Information Act for all files and court documents in the possession of the guardian ad litem (file entry 4), a "Writ of Habeas Corpus for Order of Dismissal" (file entry 5), a "Writ of Habeas Corpus" demanding an expedited hearing (file entry 6), a "Motion for Jury Trial," a "Motion for Change of Venue," and a "Motion for Discovery," Since this case should be dismissed, all of Plaintiff's motions are moot.
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff's suit against the State of Utah is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Further, this court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter. Accordingly, the State's motion to dismiss should be granted. Since it is clear that there is no subject matter jurisdiction in this case, the complaint against Box Elder County should be dismissed as well. All of Plaintiff's motions should be denied as moot.
Copies of the foregoing Report and Recommendation are being mailed to the parties, who are hereby notified that they have the right to object to the Report and Recommendation. The parties are further notified that they must file any objections to the Report and Recommendation with the clerk of the district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), within ten (10) days after receiving it. Failure to file objections may constitute a waiver of those objections on subsequent appellate review.