Jenkins, Donta v. State of Wisconsin Child Support Agency
3:22-cv-00190
W.D. Wis.May 4, 2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Donta Jenkins sued state and county child support agencies, alleging unlawful wage garnishments and interception of his CARES Act economic impact payment to satisfy child support arrears.
- Jenkins sought injunctive relief to stop further collections and damages to recover amounts already taken.
- He proceeded in forma pauperis, so the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- The court noted ongoing Wisconsin state-court child support/paternity proceedings and a March 22, 2022 order modifying Jenkins’s support obligations.
- The CARES Act does not protect stimulus payments from offset for past-due child support; federal guidance and prior decisions allow offsets up to the child-support debt.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a federal claim, concluding it could not review or modify state child-support orders and the stimulus offset was lawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court may review or modify state child‑support orders | Jenkins contends federal relief is appropriate to stop garnishment and modify obligations | State/county agencies rely on existing state-court orders and authority over domestic relations matters | Court: Federal courts cannot review/modify state domestic‑relations judgments; dismissal required |
| Whether interception of CARES Act economic impact payment was unlawful | Jenkins alleges the stimulus payment was illegally seized and applied to past‑due support | Agencies assert CARES Act permits offset of payments to satisfy child‑support arrears | Court: CARES Act permits offset for past‑due child support; seizure was lawful |
| Whether complaint states a federal claim under § 1915 screening | Jenkins argues deprivation of federal rights by garnishment and payment interception | Agencies argue claims implicate state proceedings and statutory offset rules, so no federal claim | Court: Complaint fails to state a plausible federal claim; dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (Domestic-relations matters belong to state law; federal courts must not interfere)
- In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586 (Domestic relations fall within state law authority)
- Struck v. Cook County Public Guardian, 508 F.3d 858 (7th Cir.) (Federal courts should refrain from adjudicating matters that intrude on domestic relations)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (Federal courts are precluded from reviewing state court judgments)
- Golden v. Helen Sigman & Associates, Ltd., 611 F.3d 356 (7th Cir.) (Challenges to state‑court proceedings generally must proceed through state courts and appeals)
- T.W. by Enk v. Brophy, 124 F.3d 893 (7th Cir.) (Plaintiffs asserting federal rights must raise them in state court proceedings and appeals)