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.

Banks v. Mahoning County Child Support Agency

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

June 12, 2019

KENDRAIL BANKS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MAHONING COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY, et al., DEFENDANTS.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by defendants Mahoning County Child Support Agency, Mahoning County Juvenile Court, and Mark Latas (Doc. No. 7 [“Cty. Mot.”]) and by defendant Theresa Dellick (Doc. No. 10 [“Dellick Mot.”]). Plaintiff filed “objections, ” which the Court construes collectively as plaintiff's brief in opposition to the two motions. (Doc. Nos. 9, 11/13.) Defendant Dellick also filed a reply brief. (Doc. No. 12.) For the reasons set forth herein, both motions are granted and this case is closed.[1]

         I. BACKGROUND

         On December 6, 2018, pro se plaintiff Kendrail Banks, [2] identifying himself as “Kendrail of the Family Banks, Injured, Aggrieved Party, ” filed a complaint against the four defendants.[3] (Doc. No. 1 [“Compl.”].[4]) Although the complaint is nearly indecipherable, by virtue of its reference to “Title IV-D of the Social Security Act” (Compl. at 2[5]), 42 U.S.C. §§ 651-669, it appears to be an attempt to challenge state court orders requiring plaintiff to pay child support for a child deemed to be his through a declaration of paternity.

         Plaintiff cites both 42 U.S.C. §§ 651, 666 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the jurisdictional grounds for his complaint. (Id.) He sets forth thirteen claims for relief under § 1983: (1) fraudulent inducement (id. at 9); (2) fraud (id. at 9-10); (3) false advertisement (id. at 11); (4) forced and compelled association (id. at 11-12); (5) deprivation of rights under color of law (id. at 12); (6) compelled disclosure and use of social security number (id. at 12-13); (7) intentional infliction of a bill of attainder (id. at 13); (8) first amendment violations and deprivations (id. at 13-14); (9) fourth amendment violations and deprivations (id. at 14-15); (10) fifth amendment violations and deprivations (id. at 15-16); (11) denial of right to counsel and a trial by jury (id. at 16); (12) thirteenth amendment deprivations and violations (id. at 16-17); and, (13) fourteenth amendment deprivations and violations (id. at 17-18).

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Standard on a Motion to Dismiss

         A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Although this pleading standard does not require great detail, the factual allegations in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citing authorities). In other words, “Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a ‘showing,' rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief.” Id. at 555, n.3 (criticizing the Twombly dissent's assertion that the pleading standard of Rule 8 “does not require, or even invite, the pleading of facts”) (internal citation omitted).

         “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Rule 8 does not “unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.” Id. at 678-79. “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 679. “The court need not, however, accept unwarranted factual inferences.” Total Benefits Planning Agency, Inc. v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 552 F.3d 430, 434 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987)).

         In analyzing defendants' motions, the Court recognizes that plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and that pro se complaints, which are held to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by lawyers, must be liberally construed. Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1223 (6th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). That said, the Court “is not required to conjure up unpled allegations” on behalf of a pro se plaintiff. Dietz v. Sanders, 100 Fed.Appx. 334, 338 (6th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).

         B. Analysis

         As a threshold matter, 42 U.S.C. § 666 offers no basis for jurisdiction. Section 666 provides for jurisdiction in the district courts “to hear and determine any civil action certified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 652(a)(8) of this title.” (emphasis added). There is no such certification shown here and the Secretary is not a party to this action.

         To prevail on a Section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) that he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) that he was subjected to or caused to be subjected to this deprivation by a person acting under color of state law.” Searcy v. City of Dayton, 38 F.3d 282, 286 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978)).

         Although “[a] [governmental entity] may be held liable under § 1983 if the [entity] itself caused the constitutional deprivation[, ]” id. (citing Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978)), the entity that is sued must be sui juris. Vaughn v. Common Pleas Court of Montgomery Cty., Oh., No. 3:16CV00248, 2016 WL 4264345, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 12, 2016) (holding that Court of Common Pleas is not a “person” under ...


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.