Madden v. Madden
683 F. App'x 685
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff-appellant Robert Madden, a pro se state inmate, sued his cousin Calvin Madden and the Oklahoma Child Support Services (OCSS) seeking reimbursement for 15 years of child-support payments and for funds garnished by OCSS.
- Madden alleges the child for whom he paid support (Curtis Madden) is actually Calvin’s biological son.
- The district court dismissed the complaint on initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, citing lack of jurisdiction over the claim against Calvin and Eleventh Amendment immunity for OCSS.
- Madden appealed the dismissal to the Tenth Circuit.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed whether Calvin acted under color of state law (for § 1983) or was a federal official (for a Bivens claim), and whether OCSS was subject to suit in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Calvin is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 | Calvin is responsible for harm; should be sued under § 1983 | Calvin is a private actor, not acting under color of state law | Dismissed — no allegation Calvin acted under color of state law |
| Whether Calvin is liable under Bivens | Federal constitutional remedy should apply against Calvin | Calvin is not a federal official, so Bivens does not apply | Dismissed — Bivens inapplicable because Calvin is not a federal official |
| Whether OCSS can be sued in federal court | OCSS collected funds and can be sued for garnishment actions | OCSS is a state agency protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity | Dismissed — Eleventh Amendment bars suit; no applicable waiver or abrogation |
| Whether any exception (waiver/abrogation/Ex parte Young) permits suit against OCSS | Plaintiff did not identify an applicable exception | State immunity applies; no waiver, abrogation, or Ex parte Young fit the claim | No exception applies; suit against OCSS cannot proceed in federal court |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1988) (acting under color of state law is an essential element of § 1983)
- Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1981) (acting under color of state law is jurisdictional)
- Jojola v. Chavez, 55 F.3d 488 (10th Cir. 1995) (same jurisdictional requirement for § 1983)
- Big Cats of Serenity Springs, Inc. v. Rhodes, 843 F.3d 853 (10th Cir. 2016) (Bivens remedies limited to federal officials)
- Frazier v. Simmons, 254 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2001) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies in federal court absent exceptions)
- Steadfast Insurance Co. v. Agric. Ins. Co., 507 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2007) (reaffirming state sovereign immunity principles)