Lane v. Gorup et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
DOUGLAS N. LANE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHELSEA GORUP, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On May 24, 2022, Douglas N. Lane, a self-represented prisoner (hereinafter
“Plaintiff”), filed a Prisoner’s Complaint Under The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
a Prisoner’s Application to Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee, and a civil cover
sheet.1 Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a Letter to the Court, a First Amended Complaint
(hereinafter “Amended Complaint”), a Motion to Appoint Counsel, a Motion for
Summary Judgment, and a Motion for Relaxation of the Rules.2 The Court issued a
screening order on October 13, 2022, dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted, but granted him leave to amend his
complaint or file a notice of voluntary dismissal.3 	Plaintiff subsequently filed a
Motion to Amend his Complaint, a Second Amended Complaint and a Motion to
Appoint Counsel.4
The Court now screens Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A,5 and offers its report and recommendation.
1 Docs. 1, 2, & 4.
2 Docs. 5–9.
3 Doc. 11.
4 Docs. 12-14.
5 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); Local Civil Rule 15.1; Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d.
Case 3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR Document 15 Filed 12/14/22 Page 1 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report and Recommendation
Lane v. Gorup, et al.
3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR
2
SCREENING STANDARD
Federal law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a civil complaint
filed by a self-represented prisoner seeking a waiver of the prepayment of the filing
fee. 	In this screening, a court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that the action:
(i) 	is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) 	fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) 	seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.6
To determine whether a complaint states a valid claim for relief, courts
consider whether the complaint contains sufficient factual matter that, if accepted
as true, “state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”7 	In conducting its
review, a court must liberally construe a self-represented plaintiff’s pleading and
give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.8 Before a court may dismiss any portion
of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court
must provide the plaintiff with a statement of the deficiencies in the complaint and
an opportunity to amend or otherwise address the problems, unless to do so would
be futile.9 	Futility exists when “the allegation of other facts consistent with the
challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency[.]” 10
1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir.
1997), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012))
(stating “an amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter
as non-existent”).
6 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b).
7 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007)). In making this determination, a court may consider “materials that are
submitted with and attached to the Complaint.” 	United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655
F.3d 984, 999 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lee v. L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001)).
8 See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026,
1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)).
9 See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Albrecht v. Lund,
845 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1988)).
10 See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir.
1986).
Case 3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR Document 15 Filed 12/14/22 Page 2 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report and Recommendation
Lane v. Gorup, et al.
3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR
3
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges Fourteenth Amendment due process violations against three
child support specialists with the State of Alaska’s Child Support Services Division
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	As a threshold matter, Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint does not provide facts to indicate that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction to hear this case as currently pled. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
detailed below, prohibits the Court from exercising jurisdiction over a de facto state
court appeal. Accordingly, the Court recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint without prejudice.
I. 	Second Amended Complaint
In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues Child Support Manger Mike
Miller, and Child Support Specialists Chelsea Gorup and Lori McDonnel (hereinafter
“Defendants”), all in their individual capacities.11 Broadly, Plaintiff alleges that the
ordering and implementation of his child support obligations violates his Fourteenth
Amendment 	due 	process 	rights, 	and 	that 	Defendants 	lacked 	subject 	matter
jurisdiction to implement such obligations.12
In Claim One, Plaintiff alleges that on or about August 21, 2021, Defendant
Miller, acting under the authority of the State of Alaska, violated his right to due
process by “ordering administratively an obligation of support without adequate
notice and audience or participation by myself all while lacking subject matter
jurisdiction to do so.”13 	Plaintiff alleges that this order to make child support
payments and the subsequent seizure of his money “during Covid-19 pandemic under
11 Doc. 13 at 2. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with leave to amend
because it did not meet Rule 8 pleading requirements as it related to his demand for relief,
and it did not fully meet the elemental pleading requirements of a civil rights action under
§ 1983 because Plaintiff sued Defendants in both their individual and official capacities, and
sought both injunctive relief and damages, which is impermissible. See Screening Order at
Doc. 11.
12 Id. 3-4.
13 Id. at 3.
Case 3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR Document 15 Filed 12/14/22 Page 3 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report and Recommendation
Lane v. Gorup, et al.
3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR
4
State of Emergency under A.S. § 11.51.120(d) non payment of support is a class C
Felony requiring A.S. § 25.27.250 legal assistance by department of law.”14
In Claim Two, Plaintiff alleges that on or about August 21, 2021, Defendant
“McDonnel, while under the authority of the state of Alaska violated my Due Process
Rights” by “personally assisting in an order obligating administratively on order of
said support.”15 	Plaintiff further alleges that the order obligating child support
payment lacked subject matter jurisdiction, notice to him, and participation by
him.16
In Claim Three, Plaintiff alleges that on or about August 21, 2021, Defendant
Gorup violated his right to due process by continuing the “extortion” of his money
via 	child 	support 	obligation. 	Plaintiff 	claims 	that 	“[t]he 	predatory 	collection
practices demonstrated by [Defendant Gorup] in the face of overwhelming evidence
challenging the validity of the order have had profound monetary and emotionally
negative impacts on my family unit.”17
In support of his Complaint, Plaintiff submits Exhibits A-D, consisting of his
2012 Administrative Child Support and Medical Support Order; Alaska Child Support
Services Division Automated Audit Report Summary dated July 15, 2022, referencing
case number 001183655; a letter addressed to Plaintiff from Defendant Gorup listing
his two child support case numbers; and Alaska Child Support Services Division
Automated Audit Report Summary dated July 15, 2022, referencing Plaintiff’s second
child support case number, 001151323, respectively.18
For relief, Plaintiff requests: 1) $33,451.02 in damages; 2) $2,500,000.00 in
punitive damages; 3) an order requiring Defendants to “[p]ay all Legal and Court
14 Id.
15 Id. at 4.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 5.
18 Docs. 13-1-4.
Case 3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR Document 15 Filed 12/14/22 Page 4 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report and Recommendation
Lane v. Gorup, et al.
3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR
5
Fees involved.”19 Plaintiff does not seek trial by jury.20
II. 	Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
The Court previously warned Plaintiff in its last screening order that because
Plaintiff challenged his child support obligations without sufficient factual detail,
the Court could not determine at that time whether it had subject matter jurisdiction
over this action.21 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and supporting exhibits
make it clear that he is in fact seeking to challenge a State of Alaska court order and
judgment of his child support obligations. What remains unclear to the Court is
whether Plaintiff ever began an appeal of this state court decision, is in the process
of doing so, or if he ever received a final judgment on that appeal that might then
permit federal jurisdiction.
As the Court previously mentioned in its Screening Order, the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine 	“prohibits 	a 	federal 	district 	court 	from 	exercising 	subject 	matter
jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment.”22 A de
facto appeal occurs “when the federal plaintiff both asserts as [his] injury legal error
or errors by the state court and seeks as [his] remedy relief from the state court
judgment.”23 If the plaintiff has brought a de facto appeal, then Rooker-Feldman
dictates that the district court cannot review any issues presented in the suit that
are “inextricably intertwined” with the de facto appeal.24
Although the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is generally a narrow exception to this
Court’s jurisdiction, here, it appears to bar Plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff’s allegations
19 Id. at 8.
20 Id.
21 Doc. 11.
22 Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004).
23 Id. at 1140 (finding that allegations of extrinsic fraud committed by adverse party on the
state court was not a de facto appeal because it was not an error by the state court); see also
Ismail v. Cnty. of Orange, 693 Fed. App’x 507, 510 (9th Cir. 2017) (finding that allegations
of extrinsic fraud that the state court had already addressed were barred by Rooker-
Feldman).
24 Kougasian, 359 F.3d at 1142 (citing D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483
n.16 (1983)).
Case 3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR Document 15 Filed 12/14/22 Page 5 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report and Recommendation
Lane v. Gorup, et al.
3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR
6
against Defendants challenge the legal rulings and procedural findings in his child
custody case. Plaintiff submits exhibits in support of his claim that list case numbers,
as well as contact information regarding his child support case.25 His claims against
Defendants stem from the state court clerks’ administrative procedures as applied
to him, and his claimed injury stems from alleged errors by the state court judgment
that resulted in the child support obligations he disputes and seeks relief from.26
Plaintiff’s Complaint does not indicate that he presented his case in the state
court, where he must first proceed, before turning to federal court with hopes for a
different outcome. As the Supreme Court explained, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
applies to “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by
state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced
and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.”27 His suit in
federal court is a de facto appeal from the state court’s order resulting in his child
support obligations.
If Plaintiff has not appealed his state court order in state court, he must begin
there and receive a judgment before he may consider taking it to federal court. If
Plaintiff has ongoing state court actions regarding the support or custody of his
children, this Court must abstain because federal district courts may not interfere
with ongoing enforcement proceedings in state courts.28
Thus, this Court has no jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, as plead, which
appear to be de facto appeals of his State of Alaska child custody case. The Court
previously granted Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his Complaint. At this stage,
further amendment of Plaintiff’s Complaint would not cure the deficiencies and
25 Docs. 13-1-4.
26 Doc. 13 at 8.
27 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)
28 Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72-73 (2013) (extending the
abstention principles established in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) to civil matters).
Case 3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR Document 15 Filed 12/14/22 Page 6 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report and Recommendation
Lane v. Gorup, et al.
3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR
7
would be futile.29
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint appears to be a de facto appeal of his
State of Alaska 2012 Administrative Child Support and Medical Support Order.
Without the conclusion of a formal appeal in state court, the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine prohibits federal jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the Court
recommends DISMISSING Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint without prejudice.
Plaintiff should be directed to pursue his appeal in state court or show proof of
appellate judgment. The Court further recommends that all pending motions be
DENIED as moot.
CAUTION TO PLAINTIFF
The Court recommends Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice
but provides the following analysis to caution Plaintiff regarding his claims should
he seek an appeal in state court and chose to return to this Court afterwards.
I. 	Failure to State a Claim
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instructs that a complaint must
contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the [complainant] is
entitled to relief.” A complaint should set out each claim for relief separately. Each
claim should identify (1) the specific harm that Plaintiff is alleging has occurred to
him, (2) when that harm occurred, (3) where that harm was caused, and (4) who he
is alleging caused that specific harm to him. Importantly, a complaint must also
include a demand for the relief sought.30 	This requires that a complaint articulate
what relief a plaintiff requests, for example money damages, injunctive relief, or
some other equitable remedy.
Factual allegations may not be speculative but must plead “factual content
29 See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Albrecht v. Lund,
845 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1988)); See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co.,
806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986).
30 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(3).
Case 3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR Document 15 Filed 12/14/22 Page 7 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report and Recommendation
Lane v. Gorup, et al.
3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR
8
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.”31 	While a complaint need not contain every precise,
factual detail, “unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]” are
insufficient to state a claim.32 A complaint is insufficiently plead if it offers “naked
assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.”33 	A complaint that offers legal
conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not meet
the required pleading standard.
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint does not appear to meet the Rule 8
pleading requirements because it does not show that he is entitled to any relief. To
the contrary, Exhibit A submitted with his Second Amended Complaint shows that
he 	was 	informed 	on 	August 	21, 	2012, 	of 	his 	obligations 	via 	an 	Order 	for
Administrative Child Support and Medical Support. This order clearly stated that if
he did not “request an administrative review in writing within 30 days after [he
was] served with this order, this order automatically becomes effective 30 days after
service of this notice,” which complies with Alaska Statute 25.27.160 and Alaska
Administrative Code 15:125.150.34 	This Order tells the Court that Plaintiff appears
to have been properly noticed and given the opportunity to be heard. The Court sees
no Fourteenth Amendment due process violations based on Plaintiff’s claims and
supporting documentation, and thus no relief could be granted under these facts.
II. 	Civil Rights Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 have specific required elements that a plaintiff
must plead. Section 1983 is a federal statute that “is not itself a source of substantive
rights,” 	but 	provides 	“a 	method 	for 	vindicating 	rights 	[found] 	elsewhere.”35
Constitutional rights are those conferred by the U.S. Constitution to individual
31 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
32 Id.
33 Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).
34 Doc. 13-1 at 2.
35 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137,
144 n.3 (1979)).
Case 3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR Document 15 Filed 12/14/22 Page 8 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report and Recommendation
Lane v. Gorup, et al.
3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR
9
citizens. 	Section 	1983 	can 	be 	used 	as 	a 	mechanism 	for 	enforcing 	the 	rights
guaranteed by a particular federal statute only if (1) the statute creates enforceable
rights and (2) Congress has not foreclosed the possibility of a § 1983 remedy for
violations of the statute in question.36 	Section 1983 does not provide a cause of
action for violations of state law.37
In order to plead a proper § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege plausible facts
that if proven would establish each of the required elements of: “(1) a violation of
rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute, (2) proximately
caused (3) by conduct of a ‘person’ (4) acting under color of state law.”38 Plaintiff’s
Second Amended Complaint does not allege sufficient facts to meet the first required
element, a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by Federal
statute. 	As stated above, Plaintiff’s Exhibit A submitted in support of his Second
Amended Complaint refutes his argument that his due process rights were violated.
III. 	Fourteenth Amendment Due Process - Protected Property Interest
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law.”39 	A deprivation of property in violation of the Due Process
Clause may be either a substantive or procedural claim. For either type of claim, a
plaintiff must establish they have been deprived of a protected property interest and
that the state’s procedures did not comply with due process.40
To succeed on a procedural due process claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate:
1) a property interest protected by the Constitution; 2) a deprivation of that interest
by the state; and 3) a lack of process.41 	At the fundamental level, procedural due
36 Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340-41 (1997); Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020,
1027-28 (9th Cir. 1999).
37 Galen v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 662 (9th Cir. 2007).
38 Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991).
39 U.S. Const. amend. XIV § 1.
40 American Manufacturers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 59 (1999).
41 Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th Cir. 2008).
Case 3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR Document 15 Filed 12/14/22 Page 9 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report and Recommendation
Lane v. Gorup, et al.
3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR
10
process requires “some kind of notice” and “some kind of hearing” before a state can
deprive a person of a protected property interest.42 To succeed on a substantive due
process claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate: 1) a deprivation of a protected property
interest, and 2) that the defendant’s conduct shocks the conscience and offends “the
community’s sense of fair play and decency.”43
As stated above, Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts as currently pled to
establish a violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as
they relate to a protected property interest. Again, Plaintiff’s Exhibit A refutes his
arguments here.
DATED this 14th day of December, 2022 at Anchorage, Alaska.
s/ Kyle F. Reardon
KYLE F. REARDON
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Alaska
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district court may designate a magistrate judge
to hear and determine matters pending before the Court. For dispositive matters, a
magistrate judge reports findings of fact and provides recommendations to the
presiding district court judge.44 A district court judge may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s order.45
A party may file written objections to the magistrate judge’s order within 14
fourteen days.46 Objections and responses are limited to five (5) pages in length and
42 Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127-28 (1990).
43 Marsh v. Cnty of San Diego, 680 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2012) (relying on Rochin v.
California, 342 U.S. 165, 172-73 (1952).
44 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
45 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
46 Id.
Case 3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR Document 15 Filed 12/14/22 Page 10 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report and Recommendation
Lane v. Gorup, et al.
3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR
11
should not merely reargue positions previously presented. 	Rather, objections and
responses should specifically identify the findings or recommendations objected to,
the basis of the objection, and any legal authority in support. 	Reports and
recommendations are not appealable orders. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment.47
47 See Hilliard v. Kincheloe, 796 F.2d 308 (9th Cir. 1986).
Case 3:22-cv-00132-SLG-KFR Document 15 Filed 12/14/22 Page 11 of 11