Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Aziz of the Family of Jalal v. Ohio Office of Child Support

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

May 30, 2018

AZIZ OF THE FAMILY OF JALAL, Plaintiff,
v.
OHIO OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT, et al., Defendants.

          Vascura Magistrate Judge

          OPINION AND ORDER

          GEORGE C. SMITH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Office of Child Support's Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim (“ODJFS's Motion”) (Doc. 19). The motion is fully briefed and ripe for disposition. For the following reasons, ODJFS's Motion is GRANTED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Aziz Jalal, an Ohio resident, brings this pro se action against Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Office of Child Support (“ODJFS”) and the Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency (the “County”). Jalal's complaints appear to stem from Defendants' efforts to collect child support payments pursuant to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 651, et seq. He alleges, inter alia, violations of his constitutional rights arising from his acknowledgement of paternity and the enforcement of his child support obligations and seeks money damages and termination of Defendants' collection case against him.

         More specifically, Jalal alleges that Defendants fraudulently forced him to establish legal paternity in order to impose financial and medical obligations upon him and that he was forced to contribute child support to his ex-wife as part of the Title IV-D program. (Doc. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 24, 32). Jalal claims that ODJFS “served a withholding notice on [his] employer who withheld his wages.” (Id. ¶ 41). He also alleges “[o]peration of law was used to ‘freeze and seize' financial accounts” and property. (Id. ¶¶ 41, 44, 56). Jalal further alleges that, by operation of law, application of the Title IV-D program resulted in “[w]age garnishment, unemployment compensation intercept, state income tax refund offset, federal income tax refund offset, reporting arrearages to credit bureaus, authority to seize assets of debtor parent held by public or private retirement funds and financial institutions, and federal imprisonment.” (Id. ¶¶ 47-48). Jalal goes on to allege that, “[p]ursuant to P.L. 98-378, [ODJFS] falsely report[ed] IV-D debt information to credit bureaus for the primary purpose of preventing extension of credit to [him].” (Id. ¶ 62). Finally, Jalal alleges that he requested that ODJFS terminate “the current [collection] case, ” but his request was denied because it did not meet the criteria for closure. (Id. ¶ 34).

         Jalal asserts 19 counts in his Complaint, alleging that as a result of Title IV-D and other federal statutes, he was subjected to the following:

Count 1[1] deprivation of various rights without due process in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution
Count 2 violation of his equal protection rights secured under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
Count 3 deprivation of his right to be free Count 4 deprivation of his right to be independent
Count 5 deprivation of rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution
Count 6-8 deprivation of his rights to acquire, possess, protect and defend and 10 his property
Count 9 deprivation of his right to enjoy his life
Count 11 deprivation of his right to defend ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.