Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02328/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02328-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 11cv2328

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADELAIDE BORDEAUX,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv2328-LAB (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

GREG ABBOTT, et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Adelaide Bordeaux filed her complaint along with a motion to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”). The IFP motion shows Plaintiff, though gainfully employed, owes

large amounts of nondischargeable debt in an amount equal to over five times her annual

salary. The Court therefore finds she is without funds to pay the filing fee, and GRANTS the

motion.

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by any

person proceeding IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and sua

sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent it is "frivolous, malicious, failing to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant

immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845

(9th Cir. 2001) ("[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners");

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Bordeaux is suing the Attorney General for the state of Texas, and the director of the

Case 3:11-cv-02328-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 03/09/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 11cv2328

Attorney General’s office in their official capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She is suing

because she believes Texas state officials are incorrectly attempting to collect child support

from her even though her children live in California, not in Texas. The complaint alleges that

the garnishment order increased the amount withheld from her wages, and that she has

attempted to get officials to review her case but has not yet heard back. According to the

complaint, a response had been promised by July, 2011 but had not yet been received. The

complaint argues the Texas Attorney General should have responded to her request for an

investigation, and as of the time of filing, had not done so. 

Although Bordeaux seeks punitive damages under § 1983, she has not identified any

basis for such an award. The alleged fact that Texas officials are slow in considering her

arguments does not mean she has been denied due process or equal protection, particularly

because those proceedings are still ongoing. Attached to the complaint is a letter from the

U.S. Department of State explaining that Bordeaux’s passport application was being denied

because the Department of State had been notified that she was in arrears on her child

support payments. But no one from the Department of State is a Defendant in this case, and

this collateral effect does not transform a state-law cause of action into a federal one or give

this Court power to review Texas’ child support order.

Finally, this case appears to be in part a de facto appeal of a state judgment awarding

child support, because although the complaint says Bordeaux was ordered to make some

payments to the state of Texas, she is now claiming that was error. See Lewis v. Attorney

Gen’l of the State of Texas, 101 Fed.Appx. 425, 426 (5 Cir. 2004) (“Similar to the th

enforcement of an existing judgment, the child support review orders were a court-ordered

collection of arrearages on existing child support orders.”) The Court lacks jurisdiction over

such appeals. See Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9 Cir. 2010) (citations th

omitted) (“[The Rooker-Feldman doctrine] stands for the relatively straightforward principle

that federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to hear de facto appeals from state court

judgments.”)

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-02328-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 03/09/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 11cv2328

This action is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE but WITHOUT LEAVE

TO AMEND, for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 9, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02328-LAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 03/09/12 Page 3 of 3