Jones v. Kehan

Background

Robert Jones, who was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action against Scott M. Kehan, James Meehan, and Scott M. Lekan. The opinion identifies Kehan as the alleged Commissioner of the New York State Office of Child Support Enforcement and Lekan as a former federal official. The opinion does not clarify Meehan’s position or role.

Jones alleged that a state court had ordered him to pay $79,882 in child-support debt. He alleged that officials collected money from him, failed to credit approximately $6,000 in payments, incorrectly calculated the balance, garnished his income or seized his property, and denied him an itemized account and a hearing. He sought damages, injunctive relief, and discharge of the child-support debt. The court understood the principal constitutional claims as procedural due process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against state officials and a claim under the judicially created remedy known as Bivens against Lekan, a former federal official.

Claims seeking discharge or review of the child-support debt

The court dismissed the claims seeking discharge of the debt under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the domestic-relations abstention doctrine. Rooker-Feldman generally prevents a federal district court from reviewing or overturning a final state-court judgment. The court concluded that Jones’s request to discharge the debt challenged the validity and enforcement of the state court’s 1992 child-support order. It also concluded that the claims involved domestic-relations issues that could be addressed in state court, and that Jones had not alleged facts showing that state courts could not provide a full and fair determination.

Claims against Scott M. Lekan

The court dismissed the Bivens claims against Lekan for failure to state a claim. Jones alleged no facts showing that Lekan violated his federal constitutional rights. The court also explained that 42 U.S.C. § 653 does not provide a private right to sue and that, when acting in their official duties, federal officials are not treated as debt collectors under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Procedural due process claims against state officials

The court separately considered Jones’s allegation that state officials miscalculated and collected the debt without giving him notice or an opportunity to challenge the actions. It explained that New York law provides administrative review for alleged mistakes in the amount of child-support debt and permits judicial review in state court under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules.

The court held that Jones had not stated a procedural due process claim because he did not allege that he had pursued those procedures or that they were inadequate. The court therefore dismissed the Section 1983 due process claims for failure to state a claim. The opinion also states that any claims against state officials under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act failed because those officials were not debt collectors under that statute when performing their official duties.

Claims against James Meehan

Because Jones alleged no facts about Meehan, the court dismissed the Section 1983 and Bivens claims against him for failure to state a claim. The complaint did not show whether Meehan was a state official, federal official, or private person, nor did it show that he was directly and personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action. It dismissed the claims seeking discharge of the child-support debt under Rooker-Feldman or domestic-relations abstention and dismissed the remaining claims for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The court granted Jones 30 days to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The opinion does not state that the dismissal itself was with or without prejudice.