Manalisay v. Hall

Background

James Manalisay filed an amended complaint concerning his child-support proceedings. The court dismissed it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of certain claims that are frivolous or fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

Claims

The first five claims alleged that various administrative actors violated Manalisay’s due-process and Fourth Amendment rights. The court said the allegations were “nearly impenetrable.” To the extent the court could understand them, Manalisay appeared to object generally to administrative law judges and to argue that state-court orders were unenforceable “contracts” because he had not agreed to them. The court held that these allegations did not state a plausible due-process claim.

Manalisay also challenged Department of Child Support Services agents’ levies against his bank accounts, IRA accounts, and COVID-19 stimulus checks. The court said those actions were taken pursuant to court orders and did not state a plausible Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful seizure.

The sixth claim alleged bank fraud against Karen Santana. The court held that the claim did not present a legally cognizable theory because there was no indication that the cited criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1344, created a private right of action—a right for a private person to sue under the statute.

Disposition

Judge Vince Chhabria dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. The court stated that further amendment would be futile, meaning it concluded that changing the pleading would not cure the identified problems.