Basciano v. Child Support Enforcement

Background

Ronald Basciano, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, against the “Child Support Enforcement Mt. Vernon Office.” The court understood that defendant to be the Westchester County Department of Social Service’s Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). The court had previously allowed Basciano to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Basciano alleged that OCSE had garnished his income and seized other property for more than 10 years under an income-withholding order or notice to withhold. He alleged that these actions caused anxiety, depression, stress, mental anguish, periods of homelessness, and a lack of food. He also alleged that tax refunds had been offset. Basciano questioned whether a child-support court order existed, claimed that OCSE ignored his demands for proof and a hearing, and sought $10 million in damages.

Screening standard

Because Basciano was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint, or any part of it, if it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or presented no subject-matter jurisdiction. The court was required to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations generously, but the complaint still had to provide enough factual detail to make a legally valid claim plausible.

Claims against OCSE and Westchester County

The court dismissed the claims against OCSE because municipal and county departments, including OCSE, do not have the legal capacity to be sued separately under New York law. The court construed those claims as claims against Westchester County.

To state a § 1983 claim against a municipality, Basciano had to allege that a county policy, custom, or practice caused the violation of his constitutional rights. The court found that he alleged no facts showing that a Westchester County policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged violations. It therefore dismissed his § 1983 claims against the county as well.

Procedural due process claim

The court read the complaint as asserting that OCSE officials violated Basciano’s right to procedural due process by refusing to let him challenge the basis for collecting child support. Procedural due process generally requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the government deprives a person of protected liberty or property interests. But when a property deprivation results from a random and unauthorized act, adequate procedures after the deprivation can satisfy due process.

The court explained that New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Article 52 provides procedures for child-support debtors to challenge an alleged error in the amount owed. Those procedures include submitting an objection to the agency and, if necessary, seeking judicial review in state court under Article 78. Even assuming that OCSE acted without giving Basciano notice or an opportunity to object beforehand, the court held that the availability of these post-deprivation procedures prevented those allegations from stating a procedural due process claim. Basciano did not say whether OCSE had issued a decision on his submissions or whether he had sought review under Article 78. The court stated that he could not claim denial of procedural due process if he had not used the available administrative and state-court review procedures.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It declined to give Basciano permission to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order was entered by Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon.