Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-03095/USCOURTS-ca10-16-03095-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 25, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MARLON DeWITT WATSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MISSOURI, Office of

Attorney General; MISSOURI

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL

SERVICES, Director of Family

Support Division; CHRISTINE

BROWN, Missouri Department of

Social Services, Family Support

Division; AMBER L. DAUGHERTY,

Missouri Department of Social

Services, Division of Legal Services;

LATISHA NICHOLE KNIGHTEN;

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

OF THE DIRECTOR, Missouri

Department of Social Services,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-3095

(D.C. No. 2:15-CV-09930-JAR-JPO)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRISCOE, GORSUCH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and

judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive

value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Appellate Case: 16-3095 Document: 01019677732 Date Filed: 08/25/2016 Page: 1 
Before the district court Marlon Watson claimed that the defendants

violated his constitutional and state law rights by ordering him to provide child

support and health insurance. The district court dismissed the case, thoroughly

explaining in an eleven page order that Mr. Watson’s claims, apparently based on

42 U.S.C. § 1983, could not be brought against the State of Missouri, its agencies,

and the other defendants because Eleventh Amendment and Younger abstention

doctrine barred the way. Mr. Watson now asks us to overturn the district court’s

decision. But even affording his pleadings a solicitous construction, we can

discern no error in the district court’s judgment and nothing we might add to its

careful analysis.

Affirmed.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 16-3095 Document: 01019677732 Date Filed: 08/25/2016 Page: 2