Jameel Ibrahim v. Attorney General New Jersey
21-1129
| 3rd Cir. | Jul 16, 2021Background
- Pro se plaintiff Jameel Ibrahim sued the New Jersey Attorney General (and later named two additional defendants) challenging an April 26, 2000 Child Support Hearing Officer proceeding in which he says he was coerced into genetic paternity testing.
- Ibrahim previously filed a similar suit in federal court (18-cv-3461) that was dismissed; he sought to amend that case before filing the near-identical complaint in this action.
- District Court dismissed Ibrahim’s complaint for failure to state a federal claim and, alternatively, on claim-preclusion grounds as duplicative of his earlier suit; it also dismissed claims against unserved defendants under §1915.
- Ibrahim moved for reconsideration; the District Court denied the motion and Ibrahim timely appealed.
- On appeal the Third Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and the denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion, and affirmed: Ibrahim failed to plead plausible federal claims (personal jurisdiction, due process, Title IV‑D infirmities, privacy).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Ibrahim in child support proceedings | Ibrahim argued he is an "American National / non U.S. Citizen" and sovereign‑citizen-type theories negate jurisdiction | State procedures and statutory bases establish personal jurisdiction; Ibrahim alleged no facts negating statutory bases | Court: Sovereign‑citizen claims are frivolous; Ibrahim failed to plead facts showing lack of personal jurisdiction |
| Enforceability/voluntariness of Title IV‑D obligations | Ibrahim argued Title IV‑D / 42 U.S.C. is not binding because the title is not enacted as positive law and paternity enforcement must be fully voluntary | Federal and state law authorize Title IV‑D enforcement; lack of positive‑law enactment is evidentiary only | Court: Title IV‑D is enforceable; positive‑law argument meritless and not a basis for relief |
| Due process / coercion at April 2000 hearing (threat of contempt/incarceration; counsel) | Ibrahim contended hearing officer exceeded authority, threatened contempt/incarceration, coerced genetic testing, and procedures violated N.J. rules/regulations | Hearing officers may recommend tests and request contempt adjudication; contempt was not actually initiated; no automatic right to counsel in civil contempt child support proceedings | Court: Allegations insufficient to state federal due process claim; Turner v. Rogers forecloses automatic right to counsel; officer’s actions fall within permitted authority |
| Privacy claim re: solicitation/use of non‑custodial parent SSN | Ibrahim alleged federal privacy laws were violated when custodial parent provided his SSN to state | Defendants: no cognizable federal privacy claim pleaded | Court: Ibrahim identified no legal basis for a federal privacy claim; allegations insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (U.S. 1997) (describes Title IV‑D federal statutory framework and states’ obligations)
- Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (U.S. 2011) (no automatic right to appointed counsel in civil contempt proceedings in child support enforcement)
- United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2011) (sovereign‑citizen theories lack merit and should be summarily rejected)
- Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1985) (failure to enact a title as positive law affects evidentiary weight only)
- U.S. Nat. Bank of Oregon v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1993) (when a title is not enacted as positive law, the Statutes at Large control)
- McAllister v. Sentry Ins. Co., 958 F.2d 550 (3d Cir. 1992) (appeal from denial of reconsideration brings underlying judgment up for review)
- Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou‑Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (standards for denying a motion for reconsideration)