White, Nathan: v. State Of North Wisconsin
3:23-cv-00798-wmc
W.D. Wis.Feb 1, 2024Background
- Nathan White sued the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families (DCF), challenging the garnishment of his wages for child support.
- White alleged the garnishment was unlawful and violated his constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- He represented himself and sought $10 million in damages, as well as an injunction stopping further wage deductions and termination of his child support case.
- The case was initially filed in California and transferred to the Western District of Wisconsin, where White currently resides.
- The court conducted a preliminary screening of the complaint to determine if federal subject matter jurisdiction existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over child support dispute | Federal question due to constitutional violations | Matter of state family law | No federal jurisdiction: domestic relations issue |
| Existence of a substantial federal question | Garnishment violates constitutional rights | No separate substantial federal question | No substantial federal question alleged |
| Suit against DCF under § 1983 | DCF liable for constitutional violations | DCF not a 'person' under § 1983 | DCF not amenable to suit under § 1983 |
| Court review of state court child support order | Federal court can terminate and stop collections | Review barred by Rooker-Feldman | Federal court barred from review |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (federal courts must confirm subject matter jurisdiction before addressing merits)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se complaints construed generously)
- Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (domestic relations are primarily a matter of state law)
- In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586 (federal courts lack jurisdiction over domestic relations matters)
- Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415 (family law traditionally governed by state law)
- De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570 (no general federal law of domestic relations)
- Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (federal courts decline jurisdiction in domestic relations cases)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (state agencies are not 'persons' under § 1983)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (Rooker-Feldman doctrine: federal courts cannot review state court judgments)
- Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (citizenship for jurisdiction determined at filing)