Doe v. Mower County Health and Human Services Office of Child Support

Background

John-Henry Doe filed the action under the pseudonym stated in the caption against the Mower County Health and Human Services Office of Child Support. The opinion states that this office is not a legal entity subject to suit, but the court liberally construed Doe’s pro se complaint as being against Mower County.

Doe alleged that Mower County violated his constitutional rights and fraudulently induced him to make child-support payments. He focused on a statement published on Mower County’s website about children’s rights to financial and emotional support and parental responsibility. He also alleged that some of his child-support payments were used for interest and fees rather than distributed to his child. Doe referred throughout his filings to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.

Mower County moved to dismiss because Doe filed under a false name and failed to state a claim. A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion based on failure to state a claim. Doe filed objections.

Court’s Analysis

The district court reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation independently because Doe filed specific objections. It also applied a liberal reading because Doe was representing himself.

Civil-rights claim. A claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires a constitutional or statutory violation caused by someone acting under state authority. For a claim against a county, the complaint must allege that a county policy, unofficial custom, or inadequate employee training caused the constitutional injury. The court held that Doe alleged no facts showing that a county policy, custom, or practice caused any constitutional violation. The court therefore overruled his objection to dismissal of the § 1983 claim.

Fraud claim. The court treated Doe’s separate fraud allegations as a Minnesota common-law fraud claim. Such a claim must identify the alleged false statement and facts showing, among other things, reliance, resulting financial harm, and fraudulent intent. The court held that Doe did not explain how the website statement was a fraudulent misrepresentation, did not allege that he relied on it, and did not allege facts supporting a strong inference of fraudulent intent. The court noted that Doe’s allegations indicated his payments were garnished from his wages to fulfill a child-support obligation, rather than made because he relied on the website statement. The court therefore overruled his objection to dismissal of the fraud claim.

Title IV-D allegations. The court explained that Title IV-D requires states to provide certain child-support enforcement services to qualify for federal funding. It held that Doe’s references to Title IV-D did not cure the defects in his § 1983 or fraud claims. The court also held that, viewed as a separate claim, the Title IV-D allegations did not state an actionable claim. The court said that the Supreme Court’s decision in Blessing v. Freestone did not support Doe’s position and held that an individual does not have a right under Title IV-D to bring the type of action Doe described.

False-name issue and sanctions. Because the court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim, it did not decide Mower County’s alternative argument that Doe improperly filed under a false name. The court also declined Mower County’s request for sanctions at that time.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright overruled Doe’s objections, adopted the May 13, 2019 report and recommendation, and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the action without prejudice. The order did not decide the false-name issue.