Hart v. Shmayenik

Background

Malcolm Hart, appearing without a lawyer, sued the New York City Department of Social Services (DSS) and Bronislava Shmayenik, identified as the Director of Administrative Enforcement of the Support Collection Unit of DSS’s Office of Child Support Services. Hart challenged child-support enforcement actions, including an income withholding order (IWO) sent to his employer. He attached an August 2015 support order and an October 2020 order modifying his support obligation. He sought termination of the IWO, reimbursement of $95,000 that he allegedly paid in child support, and $8 million in punitive damages.

Hart asserted claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, federal criminal statutes, and state law. He also argued that the support orders and IWO were invalid and challenged the way they were issued and enforced.

Legal standard

Because Hart had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court was required to read a self-represented party’s allegations generously, but the complaint still had to provide enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible.

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims

The court dismissed Hart’s FDCPA claims for failure to state a claim. It held that child-support obligations are not “debts” covered by the FDCPA because they do not arise from a transaction involving consumer goods or services. The court also held that DSS and Shmayenik did not qualify as “debt collectors” under the FDCPA because the statute excludes state and municipal officers and employees acting in their official duties. The court additionally noted that Hart had not alleged collection conduct violating the FDCPA.

Federal criminal-statute claims

The court dismissed Hart’s claims based on federal criminal statutes concerning fraud and conspiracies against rights. It explained that a private plaintiff cannot initiate a criminal prosecution or direct prosecutors to bring one.

Challenge to the income withholding order

Hart asked the court to terminate the IWO, stop its enforcement, and refund child-support payments collected under it. The court dismissed these claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which generally prevents a federal district court from acting as an appeals court over a state-court judgment. The court concluded that Hart was challenging the validity and enforcement of the state Family Court’s child-support determination, rather than alleging an injury separate from that judgment.

Fourth Amendment claim

Hart alleged that collecting child support violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court dismissed his related claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to state a claim. It reasoned that the money collected for child support did not involve a search or seizure of the person, home, papers, or effects protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Claims against Shmayenik

To the extent Hart sued Shmayenik personally based on an affidavit she submitted in state-court proceedings, the court dismissed that claim based on absolute witness immunity. This doctrine protects court witnesses from damages claims under Section 1983 based on their testimony, including claims alleging that the testimony was false. The court concluded that the protection applied to Shmayenik’s affidavit concerning Hart’s child-support obligations.

State-law claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction Hart’s claims against DSS and Shmayenik in her official capacity that challenged the validity and enforcement of the IWO. It dismissed Hart’s personal-capacity claims against Shmayenik based on absolute immunity. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The court did not enter judgment immediately and held the case open for 30 days so Hart could file an amended complaint if he wished. Although the opinion’s section heading states that leave to amend is denied because amendment appeared futile, the conclusion expressly allowed Hart 30 days to submit an amended complaint. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Hart permission to proceed without prepaying fees on appeal.