WHIPPLE BEY v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: July 16, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-04151
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ALFRED WHIPPLE-BEY, Civil Action No. 25-4151 (SDW) (JBC)

Plaintiff,

WHEREAS OPINION v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF July 16, 2025 HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon Plaintiff Alfred Whipple-Bey’s (“Plaintiff”) Amended Complaint, (D.E. 9), and this Court having sua sponte reviewed the Complaint for sufficiency pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8(a) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); and WHEREAS Plaintiff’s Complaint, (D.E. 1), was previously dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, (D.E. 3). Plaintiff was given thirty days to file an amended complaint. (D.E. 3 at 2); and WHEREAS Plaintiff names the New Jersey Department of Human Services; Hudson and Bergen County Divisions of Child Support and Paternity, respectively; Agent Ylbania Camilo; and Ms. Camilo’s attorney, Michael Sluka, as defendants and appears to complain about the outcome of a New Jersey state court proceeding brought against him for child support and medical coverage obligations. (D.E. 9 at 3–4); and WHEREAS pro se complaints, although “[held] to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972), must still “state a plausible claim for relief,” Yoder v. Wells Fargo Bank, 566 F. App’x 138, 141 (3d Cir. May 9, 2014) (quoting Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir. 2013)). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), “[a]

pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . ; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought”; and WHEREAS “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts “are obliged to notice jurisdictional issues and raise them on their own initiative.” Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 583 U.S. 17, 20 (2017) (citing Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011)). “Although courts hold pleadings drafted by pro se litigants to less stringent standards than those drafted by lawyers, pro se litigants still bear ‘the burden of showing that the case is properly before the court at all stages

of the litigation.’” Ingris v. Borough of Caldwell, No. 14-6388, 2015 WL 758680, at *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 23, 2015) (quoting Phillip v. Atl. City Med. Ctr., 861 F. Supp. 2d 459, 466 (D.N.J. 2012)); and WHEREAS a federal court lacking subject matter jurisdiction over a removed case must remand the matter back to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, “federal district courts lack jurisdiction over suits that are essentially appeals from state-court judgments.” Great W. Mining & Min. Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 165 (3d Cir. 2010). For the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to apply, the following four requirements must be met: “(1) the federal plaintiff lost in state court; (2) the plaintiff ‘complain[s] of injuries caused by [the] state-court judgments’; (3) those judgments were rendered before the federal suit was filed; and (4) the plaintiff is inviting the district court to review and reject the state judgments.” Id. at 166 (alterations in original) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi

Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)); and WHEREAS this Court construes Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as seeking recourse from the state court child support proceedings. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine thereby precludes this Court from hearing this case as “adjudicating Plaintiff’s claim would effectively require this Court to evaluate whether the state court judgment was erroneously entered against Plaintiff.” See Gruen v. Gruen, No. 21-17224, 2023 WL 7194902, at *2–3 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2023) (dismissing the plaintiff’s case against a state court judge, his ex-wife, and his ex-wife’s attorney complaining of the state court’s judgment on Rooker-Feldman grounds); Eisenstein v. Ebsworth, 148 Fed. App’x 75, 76–77 (3d Cir. July 13, 2005) (affirming the district court’s holding dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint challenging a child support order issued by the Superior Court of New Jersey in Essex

County because such a challenge fell “squarely within the Rooker-Feldman doctrine”); therefore Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An appropriate order follows.

___/s/ Susan D. Wigenton_____ SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.

Orig: Clerk cc: Parties James B. Clark, U.S.M.J.