PATRICK D. DONOHUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GEORGE E. PATAKI, Governor of the, (2nd Cir. 2002)
Linked as:
Text
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 22nd day of January , two thousand and two.
PRESENT:
Hon. John M. Walker, Jr.
Chief Judge, Hon. José A. Cabranes, Hon. Chester J. Straub Circuit Judges.
PATRICK D. DONOHUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, -v.- No. 01-7051
GEORGE E. PATAKI, Governor of the State of New York; ELIOT L. SPITZER, Attorney General of the State of New York; RICHARD E. NICHOLAS, Chief Clerk Rockland County Family Court; CAROL B. DONOHUE, Defendants-Appellees.
PATRICK D. DONOHUE, pro se, APPEARING FOR APPELLANT:
Valley Cottage, NY APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: CHARLES F. SANDERS, Assistant Attorney General, (Eliot L. Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, Mark Gimpel, Deputy Solicitor General, on the brief) New York, NY CAROL B. DONOHUE, pro se, Nanuet, NY Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Barrington D. Parker, District Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of said district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.
Appellant Patrick D. Donohue appeals from a November 30, 2000 judgment of the district court sua sponte dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Donohue's complaint, brought against his former wife and several state officials, asserted various claims relating to a New York State Family Court's decision affirming an increase in his weekly child support payments.
In an order entered on November 29, 2000, the district court dismissed Donohue's complaint pursuant to Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh Street Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (holding that district court may dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte even when the plaintiff has paid the required filing fee). This Court has not yet ruled as to the standard of review that applies to the sua sponte dismissal of a fee-paid claim, such as the one at issue here. See id. at 364 n.2. Whether reviewed for an abuse of discretion or under the more stringent de novo standard, however, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Donohue's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
We agree with the district court's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to invalidate or otherwise review the state court's decision affirming the modification of Donohue's child support payments. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S.
689, 703 (1992) (holding that domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction "divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees"); D.C.
Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 & n.16
(1983) (holding that district courts do not have jurisdiction to review state court decisions or claims "inextricably intertwined" with the merits of the state court determination).
The district court also properly determined that Donohue had failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the grounds that (1) Donohue's wife was not a state actor, see West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988); (2) Donohue did not allege that Governor Pataki or Attorney General Spitzer were involved in, or had notice of, the alleged constitutional violation, see, e.g., Meriwether v. Coughlin, 879 F.2d 1037, 1047-48 (2d Cir. 1989); and (3) the Chief Clerk for the Rockland County Family Court is entitled to absolute immunity from this suit, see Oliva v. Heller, 839 F.2d 37, 39-40 (2d Cir. 1988).
Finally, to the extent that Donohue's appeal challenges the constitutionality of New York C.P.L.R. § 5241, this claim was not presented to the district court and, therefore, is not properly before us. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120-21
(1976).
Accordingly, for substantially the reasons stated in the district court's thoughtful and thorough opinion, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- US Code - Title 42: The Public Health and Welfare - 42 USC 1983 - Sec. 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
- U.S. Supreme Court - West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - Vincent Oliva, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kirby Heller, Defendant-Appellee., 839 F.2d 37 (2nd Cir. 1988)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - Charles Meriwether, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. Thomas A. Coughlin, Iii, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services; Charles Scully, Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility; Steven Dalsheim, Superintendent Downstate Correctional Facility, and David R. Harris, Ex-Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - Thomas Fitzgerald, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. First East Seventh Street Tenants Corp., Allen Brill, Kelly Gigante, Dianne Gasworth, Stephen Roxburgh, Willie Viera, Civil Court of the City of New York, New York City Housing Preservation Dep'T, Division of Housing & Community Renewal, and New York City Buildings Dep'T, Defendants-Appellees., 221 F.3d 362 (2nd Cir. 2000)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
