McPherson v. State of New York

Background

EJ MCPHERSON proceeded without a lawyer and sued the State of New York, Governor Kathy Hochul, Judges Edwina G. Richardson-Mendelson and Monica Drinane, and attorneys Kemp J. Reaves and Rosanna Mazzota. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and state law. He alleged that procedures used to collect child support violated his constitutional rights and were connected to his felony convictions under New York law. He sought injunctive relief, including expungement of his criminal record, and money damages.

The court treated the complaint, a later letter, and a memorandum of law together as the operative complaint. It found that these submissions did not provide the short and plain factual statement required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but understood MCPHERSON to be challenging the validity or enforcement of Bronx County Family Court orders concerning child support.

Reasons for dismissal

The court first held that the claims under Sections 1981 and 1983 were time-barred. Section 1981 claims were subject to a four-year limitations period, and Section 1983 claims were subject to a three-year period. Because the complaint was filed on December 21, 2022, claims arising before December 21, 2018, under Section 1981, and before December 21, 2019, under Section 1983, could not proceed. The alleged conduct occurred from February 2000 through December 2013.

The court also held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over claims asking it to review or overturn the Bronx County Family Court’s child-support orders. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts generally cannot act as appellate courts reviewing final state-court judgments. The court concluded that MCPHERSON was challenging final state-court decisions issued before this federal case and that his claims met the requirements for applying that doctrine.

The court separately applied the domestic-relations abstention doctrine. That doctrine requires a federal district court to refrain from deciding federal-question claims involving domestic-relations issues when those issues can be fully and fairly determined in state court. The court found no allegation that MCPHERSON lacked a full and fair opportunity to seek modification of the Family Court’s support order.

The court further ruled that the Eleventh Amendment barred MCPHERSON’s Section 1983 damages claims against the State of New York and against Governor Hochul in her official capacity. It also ruled that judicial immunity barred his damages claims against Judges Richardson-Mendelson and Drinane, Hearing Examiner Reaves, and Mazzota for actions connected to the Family Court’s judicial work. The court stated that these defendants were immune from the requested monetary relief.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii), which requires dismissal of certain complaints filed without prepayment of fees, and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims. It denied leave to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal, terminated all other pending matters, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.