Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_12-cv-00406/USCOURTS-ared-5_12-cv-00406-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

JAMES GREEN 

ADC #113001 

v. No. 5:12-cv-406-DPM 

PAUL D. SELBY, Attorney, Monticello Regional OCSE; 

PARKER HOUSER, Claims Representative, 

Social Security; and TALIA LAMBERT, Investigator, 

PLAINTIFF 

Monticello Office of Child Support Enforcement DEFENDANTS 

ORDER 

After James Green started getting disability benefits from the Social 

Security Administration, they got garnished for child support. Here Green 

asserts constitutional claims against various people involved- a lawyer and 

an investigator with the Arkansas Office of Child Support Enforcement in 

Monticello and a claims representative with the Social Security 

Administration. Green has sued the defendants individually and in their 

official capacities for damages and injunctive relief. Sovereign immunity bars 

his official-capacity damages claims. Murphy v. State of Arkansas, 127 F.3d 750, 

754 (8th Cir. 1997) (state officials); Buford v. Runyon, 160 F.3d 1199, 1203 (8th 

Cir. 1998) (federal officials). The Court has considered the undisputed 

material facts and, where there is some dispute, viewed the record in Green's 

Case 5:12-cv-00406-DPM Document 133 Filed 01/29/15 Page 1 of 6
favor. Taylor v. White, 321 F.3d 710, 715 (8th Cir. 2003). 

1. Facts. In September 2009, the Social Security Administration found 

that Green was disabled and eligible for both disability and supplementalincome benefits. NQ 102 at 20-30. The Administration then had to calculate the 

amount of those benefits. In his application, Green said that he lived with his 

parents; and he didn't help with household payments or buy his own food. 

NQ 102 at 83. Based on this information, the Administration determined that 

the amount Green would receive in disability benefits rendered him ineligible 

for needs-based supplemental-income benefits. NQ 86-10 at 4. Green therefore 

drew only disability benefits. NQ 89-1at57-58 (deposition pagination). 

Green had two minor children to whom he owed child support. Paul 

Selby of the Office of Child Support Enforcement in Monticello, Arkansas, 

learned that Green had been approved for disability benefits. Selby moved to 

modify Green's child-support obligations. A hearing on the motion was set 

for February 2010. Green says he never got the notice or copy of the motion. 

The affidavit of service shows that Green's mother, Queenetta, signed for the 

papers at her house, where Green lived. NQ 102 at 50. Green concedes that 

service could have been made at his house, but says that he never actually 

-2-

Case 5:12-cv-00406-DPM Document 133 Filed 01/29/15 Page 2 of 6
received the papers. NQ 89-1 at 20 (deposition pagination). When the 

modification hearing was held in February, Green was in jail. It was Selby's 

fault, Green says, that he didn't attend the hearing. 

After the hearing, the Circuit Court of Bradley County, Arkansas, issued 

an order finding that service was proper and modifying Green's child-support 

obligations to account for his disability benefits. NQ 86-6. Talia Lambert, also 

with the Office of Child Support Enforcement, then prepared garnishment 

forms; she did so incorrectly, according to Green. The Social Security 

Administration received the order and began garnishing a portion of Green's 

disability benefits. Green says the Administration took too much. He blames 

Parker Houser, his Social Security claims representative, for withholding too 

much from the benefits. 

2. Selby and Lambert. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to 

revisit the notice issue. Were this Court to conclude that Selby and Lambert 

failed to notify Green about the child-support-modification hearing, this 

Court would essentially be reversing the state court's ruling that service was 

proper. Green, a state-court loser, cannot bring his appeal to this 

Court. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 293-94 

-3-

Case 5:12-cv-00406-DPM Document 133 Filed 01/29/15 Page 3 of 6
(2005); Skit International, Ltd. v. DAC Technologies of Arkansas, Inc., 487 F.3d 

1154, 1157-58 (8th Cir. 2007). 

Green's argument that Lambert incorrectly filled out the garnishment 

form in June 2009 comes too late. Green sued in October 2012. More than 

three years had passed since Lambert filled out that form. Any§ 1983 claim 

based on that conduct is thus time barred. ARK. CODE ANN.§ 16-56-105; Baker 

v. Chisom, 501 F.3d 920, 922 (8th Cir. 2007). 

3. Houser. The Social Security claims representative, Houser, is immune 

from civil liability for complying with a facially valid court order. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 659(£)(1). And even absent this statutory immunity, Green hasn't shown that 

Houser violated Green's rights. He was entitled to monthly disability benefits 

of $761.50. Green agrees that $239.20-31.5%-of that amount was withheld 

monthly for child support. NQ 89-1 at 57 (deposition pagination). By law, at 

least 50% of Green's disability benefits could be taken to satisfy his childsupport obligations. 15 U.S.C. § 1673(b)(2). Houser therefore withheld from 

Green less than, not more than, the law allowed. Nor is this a case where 

supplemental-income benefits were being taken to satisfy a child supportobligation. E.g., Davis v. Office of Child Support Enforcement, 341 Ark. 349, 

-4-

Case 5:12-cv-00406-DPM Document 133 Filed 01/29/15 Page 4 of 6
358 (2000). 

Green argues further that the Administration erred in finding him 

ineligible for supplemental-income benefits. Remember that when he applied 

for those benefits, Green said that he lived with his parents and didn't pay for 

household expenses or food. Green now says he did. His parents echo him: 

they now say that Green helped with those expenses too. NQ 102 at 38-39. This 

evidence, which the Court views in Green's favor, might have altered the 

calculation of Green's supplemental-income benefits. But neither Green nor 

his attorney at the time appealed the Administration's benefits award. NQ 119-

2 at 2. The Court therefore cannot review that decision. Anderson v. Sullivan, 

959 F.2d 690, 692-93 (8th Cir. 1992). 

* * * 

Houser' s motion for summary judgment, NQ 85, granted. Selby and 

Lambert's motion for summary judgment, NQ 89, granted. Motions in limine, 

NQ 123 & 124, denied as moot. Judgment will issue in due course. 

-5-

Case 5:12-cv-00406-DPM Document 133 Filed 01/29/15 Page 5 of 6
So Ordered. 

D .P. Matshall Jr. 

United States District Judge 

-6-

Case 5:12-cv-00406-DPM Document 133 Filed 01/29/15 Page 6 of 6