United States District Court, D. Vermont
ORDER (Docs. 9, 21, 22, 23, 24, 34)
J.
Garvan Murtha Honorable J. Garvan Murtha United States
District Judge
I.
Introduction
Plaintiff
Bahji Adams, proceeding pro se, brings this action against
the Vermont Office of Child Support, Georgia Division of
Child Support Services, Director Keith Horton, individually
and as Commissioner for the DFCC State of Georgia,
Commissioner for the State of Vermont for the Office of Child
Support, Jane Doe and John Doe (collectively,
"Defendants"). (Doc. 3 ("Compl.").) The
Georgia Division of Child Support Services ("Georgia
DCS"), a division of the Georgia Department of Human
Services ("Georgia DHS"), and Keith Horton, former
Commissioner of the Georgia DHS (collectively, "Georgia
Defendants") filed a special appearance and motion to
dismiss. (Doc. 9.) Adams opposes the motion (Doc.
31)[1]
and the Georgia Defendants replied (Doc. 37). Horton also
filed a Notice of Separation from Office. (Doc. 8.) As he is
no longer the Commissioner or an employee of the Georgia DHS,
he requests the current Commissioner, Robyn A. Crittenden, be
substituted as the official capacity defendant. Adams
acknowledged the notice and raised no objection. See
Doc. 31 at 2. The Clerk's office is directed to amend the
case caption accordingly.
The
Commissioner for the State of Vermont for the Office of Child
Support ("Commissioner") and the Vermont Office of
Child Support ("Vermont OCS") (collectively,
"Vermont Defendants") move to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. (Doc. 34.) Adams
did not respond.
Adams
has filed a motion to seal (Doc. 21) an affidavit she filed
in support of her complaint, a motion for joinder (Doc. 22),
and a motion for judicial notice (Doc. 23). The motion to
seal is unopposed. Adams filed a memorandum of law in support
of her motion for joinder (Doc. 25) and the Georgia
Defendants filed an opposition (Doc. 30). The Georgia
Defendants also oppose Adams' motion for judicial notice.
(Doc. 35.)
II.
Background
In
August 2005, Adams filed for divorce from her husband, Adam
George, in Georgia Superior Court. In October 2007, after
extensive discovery and motion practice, Adams informed the
court she would no longer attend any proceedings. In November
2007, the Georgia state court issued a final divorce order,
awarding George sole legal and physical custody of the
parties' son and ordering Adams to pay child support in
the amount of $601 per month. Adams, now a resident of
Vermont, asserts claims arising from this child support order
and subsequent enforcement activities.
Adams
alleges she suffers from "limited cognitive impairments,
" a "traumatic brain injury, " and physical
impairments of "chronic lower back pain, cervical spine
pain, narrowing of her spinal column, disc herniation . . .
and migraine headaches, " resulting from a 2003 car
accident. Compl. at 42-43. She claims the Georgia state court
did not consider her requests for various accommodations for
these impairments during the divorce proceeding. Id.
at 43-45. She also claims the Georgia state court "had
knowledge that any alleged $601.00 a month in child support
was in extreme excess of [her] ability to support herself,
" and so was unlawful. Id. at 31-32. She
asserts the final judgment was entered without accommodation
to her disabilities, which influence her earning ability.
Id. at 28, 42-43, 46.
In July
2008, the State of Georgia began wage withholding from
Adams' employer to satisfy her child support obligation.
Compl. at 15, 23. She claims she was not provided proper
notice of the withholding and enforcement of the final
judgment--including collection of the child support--was
unlawful because it left her destitute. Id. at 23,
31-32. In 2009, she was furloughed from her job. Id.
at 24. She claims she was then eligible for assistance from
the Georgia DHS and Georgia DCS to modify her child support
obligations but no assistance was provided. Id. at
24-26.
Adams
moved to Vermont in 2010. In January 2013, Adams filed an
action in this Court arguing her passport was improperly
restricted because of the allegedly unlawful child support
order and subsequent enforcement of her child support
obligations. See Adams v. Georgia Div. of Child Support
Servs., No. 2:13-CV-10 (D. Vt. Jan. 16, 2013). The case
was eventually dismissed as to the Georgia defendants based
on lack of personal jurisdiction. Id. (Docs. 47, 52
(2015 WL 4755721, 2016 WL 1015339)).
In May
2013, the Vermont Superior Court registered the Georgia child
support order in Vermont after a filing by Vermont OCS.
Compl. at 55-56; see also Doc. 34-4. In late March
2014, Adams, through counsel, sought relief from the judgment
and reimbursement of "excess garnishment" in the
amount of $277.56. (Docs. 34-6, 34-7.) A magistrate judge
denied her motions, and the Vermont Superior Court affirmed
(Doc. 34-1), as did the Vermont Supreme Court, George v.
Adams, No. 2014-424, 2015 WL 2383816 (Vt. May 14, 2015).
Adams claims the state of Vermont has attempted, and is
currently attempting, unlawfully to collect the child support
payments and arrears. Compl. at 10-11, 27, 55, 56. She
asserts alleged violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth
and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution, Title II of the
American's Disabilities Act ("ADA"), Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the due process clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. She seeks to enjoin enforcement of
the final judgment, a refund of all money collected, and
damages. Id. at 78-79.
The
Vermont Defendants argue the complaint should be dismissed in
its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
(Doc. 34.) The Georgia Defendants argue the Court lacks
personal and subject matter jurisdiction, Eleventh Amendment
and sovereign immunity bar damages and injunctive claims,
failure to state a claim, and the statute of limitations is
expired.
While
pro se litigants are afforded a liberal pleading standard,
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007),
nonetheless, a pro se litigant is not exempt from compliance
with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law,
Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983).
III.
Discussion
A.
Georgia ...