Tomczyk v. N.Y. Unified Court Sys.

KIETH TOMCZYK, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM,OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, N.Y.,SUFFOLK COUNTY 10TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT,H. PATRICK LEIS, III, in official capacity and personal capacity,JENNIFER LIPPMAN, ESQ., THERESA MARI, ESQ.,SARI FRIEDMAN, ESQ., JESSICA TOMCZYK,STATE DEFENDANTS JOHN DOES 1-10 and JANE DOES 1-10,SUFFOLK COUNTY DEFENDANTS JOHN DOES 1-10and JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants.

19-CV-2753(JS)(AYS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

June 10, 2019

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff:

Kieth Tomczyk, prose

21 Soloff Road

Massapequa, New York 11758

For Defendants:

New York Unified

Court System, Office

of Court Administration,

H. Patrick Leis, III,

Ralph Pernick, Esq.

Office of the N.Y. State Attorney General

200 Old Country Road, Suite 240

Mineola, New York 11501

County of Suffolk, N.Y.

Brian C. Mitchell, Esq.

Suffolk County Dept. of Law

100 Veterans Memorial Highway

P.O. Box 6100

Hauppauge, New York 11788

Sari Friedman, Esq.

Jenna Lyn Fierstein, Esq.

Matthew K. Flanagan, Esq.

Catalano Gallardo & Petropoulos, LLP

100 Jericho Quadrangle, Suite 326

Jericho, New York 11753

Suffolk County 10th District,

Jennifer Lippman, Esq., Theresa

Mari, Esq., Jessica Tomczyk,

John and Jane Does

No appearances.

SEYBERT, District Judge:

On May 10, 2019, Kieth Tomczyk ("Plaintiff"), acting pro se, filed a Complaint in this Court against the New York Unified Court System ("Court System"), the Office of Court Administration ("OCA"), the County of Suffolk, New York ("Suffolk County"), Suffolk County 10th Judicial District ("10th District"), the Honorable H. Patrick Leis, III, in his official capacity and personal capacity ("Justice Leis"), Jennifer Lippman, Esq. ("Lippman"), Theresa Mari, Esq. ("Mari"), Sari Friedman, Esq. ("Friedman"), Jessica Tomczyk ("Tomczyk"), State Defendants John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10 ("State Does 1-20"), Suffolk County Defendants John Does 1-10 and Jane Does 1-10 ("County Does 1-20" and collectively, "Defendants"). The Complaint challenges an on-going divorce and child support enforcement action, Jessica Tomczyk v. Kieth Tomczyk, Index No. 33914/2013, in the New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and seeks "damages, injunctive relief and declaratory relief for violations of his fundamentally secured rights, for violating his parental rights through a campaign of parental alienation, and violating his fundamental rights through a campaign of judicial terrorism." (Compl. ¶ 1.) More specifically, in addition to alleging a deprivation of his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, Plaintiff claims that the "Defendants conducted a RICO enterprise of racketeering, extortion, fraud, wire fraud, and mail fraud for profit and gain against Plaintiff as a litigant and taxpayer, thus violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and other violations and causes of action." (Compl. ¶¶ 3-4, 17.) Plaintiff paid the filing fee to commence this action.

Because Plaintiff seeks to challenge his on-going state court divorce/child support enforcement action, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate his claims for the reasons that follow.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's voluminous Complaint is eighty-three typed pages and is comprised of 281 paragraphs with an additional 771 pages of exhibits. Though styled as a civil rights and RICO action, Plaintiff seeks to challenge rulings made in an underlying state court divorce and child support enforcement case pending in New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk County (the "State Court"), under Index No. 33914/2013 (the "State Case"). (See generally Compl., D.E. 1.) Plaintiff also seeks to recover a damages award in the sum of $200 billion dollars on each of his claims. (Compl. at 55-57, 60, 62, 69, 72, 74, 77-79, 81-82.)

Plaintiff is no stranger to this Court. The instant Complaint is Plaintiff's second attempt to bring his on-going state court matrimonial and child support enforcement action to this Court. In June 2017, Plaintiff paid the Court's $400 filing fee and unsuccessfully sought to remove the State Case to this Court (see Tomczyk v. Tomczyk, 17-CV-3630 ("Tomczyk I")). By Memorandum and Order dated June 29, 2017, the Court sua sponte remanded the action to the State Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447. (See Tomczyk I M&O, D.E. 6.) The Court cautioned Plaintiff that, "under the domestic relations exception to this Court's subject matter jurisdiction, 'divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees remain outside federal jurisdictional bounds[ ]' [quoting] Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 308, 126 S. Ct. 1735, 1746, 164 L. Ed. 2d 480, 495 (2006)" and that "jurisdiction over the Complaint is likely barred by the domestic relations exception to the jurisdiction of the federal courts." (See Tomczyk I M&O at 4.) Notwithstanding the Court's guidance, Plaintiff has paid the $400.00 filing fee again and continues his attempt to bring the State Case to this Court.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

Courts are obliged to construe the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff liberally. See Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008); McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004). However, a complaint must plead sufficient facts to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (citations omitted). The plausibility standard requires "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. at 678; accord Wilson v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 671 F.3d 120, 128 (2d Cir. 2011). While "'detailed factual allegations'" are not required, "[a] pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

Further, regardless of whether a plaintiff has paid the filing fee, a district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case, sua sponte, if it determines that the court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3); Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000).

II. The Domestic Relations Exception Bars Plaintiff's Claims

Under the domestic relations exception, "divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees" remain outside federal jurisdictional bounds. Marshall, 547 U.S. at 308, 126 S. Ct. at 1746 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Mitchell-Angel v. Cronin, 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 1996) (unpublished opinion); Rabinowitz v. New York, 329 F. Supp. 2d 373, 376 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (dismissing pro se complaint seeking to challenge state court child custody order because federal court review was barred by the domestic relations exception) (citing Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703, 112 S. Ct. 2206, 2214-15, 119 L. Ed. 2d 468 (1992)). This exception is based upon a "policy consideration that the states have traditionally adjudicated marital and child custody disputes and therefore have developed competence and expertise in adjudicating such matters, which the federal courts lack." Thomas v. N.Y. City, 814 F. Supp. 1139, 1146 (E.D.N.Y. 1993).

Applying these principles, courts in the Second Circuit have abstained from controversies that, regardless of how a plaintiff characterizes them, "begin and end in a domestic dispute." Tait v. Powell, 241 F. Supp. 3d 372, 377 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Martinez v. Queens Cty. Dist. Atty., 596 F. App'x 10, 12 (2d Cir. 2015) (applying domestic relations exception to plaintiff's conspiracy claim against state judges and officials involved in divorce proceeding and reasoning that "subject matter jurisdiction may be lacking in actions directed at challenging the results of domestic relations proceedings," even if parties are not seeking a custody decree).

As is readily apparent, Plaintiff's claims here seek to challenge determinations in the State Case. Such claims unquestionably implicate the judicially recognized exception to federal subject matter jurisdiction in cases involving domestic relations. Ankenbrandt, 504 U.S. at 714, 112 S. Ct. at 2221 ("The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Although Plaintiff styles some of his claims as raising statutory and constitutional issues, the allegations stem from an on-going state domestic relations matter and are thus outside this Court's jurisdiction. McArthur v. Bell, 788 F. Supp. 706, 709 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) (former husband's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which he claimed that his constitutional rights were violated in proceedings in which former wife obtained upward adjustment of child support would require the court to "re-examine and re-interpret all the evidence brought before the state court" in the earlier state proceedings and, therefore, the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction) (citing Neustein v. Orbach, 732 F. Supp. 333 (E.D.N.Y. 1990) (district court lacked jurisdiction because it could not resolve factual disputes connected to domestic relations)); see also Sullivan v. Xu, 10-CV-3626, 2010 WL 3238979, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2010) (no jurisdiction over the plaintiff's challenges to child custody and child support orders).

Accordingly, because Plaintiff challenges the underlying, on-going State Court matrimonial and child support enforcement action, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the domestic relations exception to this Court's jurisdiction. The Complaint is...