Simmons v. NYS Dept of Social Services
1:19-cv-03633
S.D.N.Y.Nov 5, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Ricardo R. Simmons, Jr., proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, alleges DSS and county child-support units enforced decades‑old paternity/support orders against him and seeks to “suspend action” and restore rights.
- In 1989 Simmons was summoned by Rockland County DSS, signed papers he now says he did not knowingly consent to, and was later arrested for nonpayment of child support.
- Arrears and related enforcement were transferred to Onondaga County; a 2017 Onondaga notice listed arrears of $4,483.83 and warned of DMV license suspension; Simmons filed a Family Court petition (June 22, 2017) which was dismissed as insufficient (July 27, 2017).
- A 2019 income‑withholding order directed $36 weekly from SSA benefits; Simmons alleges DSS also withdrew $100 from his Chase account (an alleged over‑collection) and seeks $100,000 in damages and credit‑report removal.
- He challenges calculation/validity of arrears, contends some amounts are fraudulent or accrued while his son was incarcerated, and seeks relief against NYS DSS, Rockland CSEU, and Onondaga DSS/CSEU.
- Court construed a motion as the operative amended complaint and dismissed the suit for the reasons below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal jurisdiction to review state paternity/order | Simmons says he never knowingly consented to paternity/support and asks federal court to suspend enforcement | Federal defendants argue federal courts cannot act as appellate tribunals over final state‑court judgments | Dismissed: Rooker‑Feldman bars federal review of state paternity/support judgments; court lacks jurisdiction |
| Challenge to arrears calculation / request to modify arrears | Arrears are fraudulent; some amounts accrued improperly (e.g., while son incarcerated); transfer errors between counties | Amounts and enforcement were determined by Family Court; federal review is precluded and domestic‑relations/abstention doctrines apply | Dismissed: Rooker‑Feldman and abstention — Family Court is the proper forum; plaintiff must pursue state remedies |
| Alleged unauthorized bank withdrawal / §1983 procedural‑due‑process claim | DSS withdrew $100 from his account (double‑dipping) and compounded interest; seeks money damages | Any overwithholding is enforcement separate from validity of order; alleged taking appears random/unauthorized and state post‑deprivation remedies exist | Dismissed for failure to state a §1983 claim: where deprivation is random/unauthorized, state post‑deprivation process (Family Court/state remedies) is adequate |
| License suspension and credit‑reporting (FCRA) claims | License was unlawfully suspended; arrears reporting harmed credit and must be removed | NY law provides pre‑suspension notice, 45‑day challenge period, and review procedures; reporting of arrears is statutorily authorized | Dismissed: state statutory procedures provide adequate process; FCRA/constitutional claims fail because reporting/enforcement followed statutory scheme and Family Court is the avenue to challenge arrears |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (federal courts may not exercise appellate review of state‑court judgments)
- Hoblock v. Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77 (2d Cir.) (articulating Rooker‑Feldman requirements)
- McKithen v. Brown, 481 F.3d 89 (2d Cir.) (district courts cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction over state judgments)
- Sykes v. Bank of America, 723 F.3d 399 (2d Cir.) (addressing attachability of SSDI and enforcement procedures)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (pre/post‑deprivation due‑process framework)
- Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir.) (pro se pleadings construed liberally)