Facts
- Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) after a remand for further proceedings was granted on July 25, 2022 [lines="15-23"].
- The commissioner did not contest the motion for attorney fees, indicating agreement on the issue [lines="17-18", "240"].
- Plaintiff's counsel acknowledged the untimeliness of his motion due to receiving the Notice of Award on March 28, 2024, beyond the required deadline [lines="29-32"].
- The court discussed the application of equitable tolling to consider the late-filed motion due to circumstances beyond counsel's control [lines="39-70"].
- Plaintiff's counsel requested a fee of $11,794.75, which falls within the permissible 25% of past-due benefits awarded to the plaintiff [lines="150-151", "229-231"].
Issues
- Whether the court should consider the late-filed motion for attorney’s fees under equitable tolling principles [lines="39-40"].
- Whether the requested fee of $11,794.75 is reasonable under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) [lines="151"].
Holdings
- The court determined that equitable tolling applied, allowing for the consideration of the untimely motion for attorney fees [lines="70"].
- The court found the requested fee of $11,794.75 to be reasonable for the work performed by plaintiff’s counsel, not constituting a windfall [lines="230-231"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
MYRIAM ZAYAS Case No. C24-640-RSM Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v.
JULIE DECAMP, Defendant.
Pro se Plaintiff Myriam Zayas was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter on May 10, 2024. Dkt. #4. The Complaint has been posted on the docket. Dkt. #5. Summons has not yet been issued.
Ms. Zayas brings this action against Julie DeCamp for “US[ing] HER AUTHORITY TO REMOVE [her] CHILD WITH NO PREDEPRIVATION HEARING and using a dependency order from 2 years ago.” . at 4. Ms. Zayas alleges the following:
On or about April 30th, 2024, my 9-year-old child was removed from her elementary school by Julie [DeCamp] under direct orders of Sylvia Howard and approved by [J]udge McCoy who knew there was no pre deprivation hearing and Julie used a 2 year old Dependency court order to perform this removal. The allegations were that I did not complete services from two years ago. Julie knows Sylvia Howard is a racist and hates me because [I] am white with black children, but she is too afraid to speak up[;] she has been doing whatever [S]ylvia wants and she obviously never reads the law either. RCW 13.34.138(1)[.] The status of all children found to be dependent shall be reviewed by the court at least every six *2 months from the beginning date of the placement episode or the date dependency is established, whichever is first. The purpose of the hearing shall be to review the progress of the parties and determine whether court supervision should continue. That 2 year old dependency order is not a valid removal order and no pre- deprivation hearing violates my constitutional right to procedural and substantive due process. Id . Ms. Zayas alleges emotional, mental, financial, and other injuries due to the alleged violations of Ms. Zayas’ rights “guaranteed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 and the United States Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause.” Id . at 5. For relief, Ms. Zayas states:
Ms. DeCamp “to leave me alone[;] she has been harassing me for so many years and she’s under the direct orders of an African American Sylvia Howard who hates me because I’m white and she knows this and she still supports it[;] she needs to be put in prison for traumatizing my 2 year old and my 9 year old[.] [S]he remove[d] both of my children last week without valid court orders without pre hearings without anything. Julie [DeCamp] needs to be in prison right now[.] [S]he committed crimes and she’s supporting racism and eye color discrimination. Id . Ms. Zayas requests that this Court “create an injunction restraining defendant from ever contacting me or any of my children ever again. Sylvia Howard works directly through her both of them shall be arrested.” .
The Court will dismiss a Complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim, raises frivolous or malicious claims, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
As it currently stands, Ms. Zayas’ Complaint fails to state a claim upon which this Court may grant relief. Ms. Zayas states that her child was removed pursuant to an order “approved by [J]udge McCoy[.]” Dkt. #5 at 4. The Complaint appears to relate to a family law matter or enforcement of state court orders involving children, which is outside of federal subject matter jurisdiction both because family law matters are handled by the states and because federal court review of state court decisions is barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Exxon Mobil *3 Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.”). “While rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts.” Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow , 542 U.S. 1, 12 (2004).
In sum, Ms. Zayas’ Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief by this Court can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED. This case is CLOSED.
DATED this 16 th day of May, 2024.
A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE