NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 13a0038n.06
No. 12-5455
UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T

I SAAC SEFA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
COMMONWEAL TH OF KENTUCKY , CABI NET F OR HEAL TH & FAMI L Y SERVI CES,
Def endant- Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

Be fore : MARTI

N and WHI TE, Circuit J udg es; ECONOMUS, District J udg e. *

PER CURI AM
. I saac Sefa, a pro se Ke n t u cky resident, appea ls a district court judgme nt
g ranting the def

endant’ s motion t o dismiss

. We AFF I RM. Seeking monetary , decla

ratory , and injunctive relief , Sefa sued the Kentucky C ab i n et for
Hea lth and Family Service s (the Cabinet). Sefa alleg ed t h at t he Cabinet kidnapped his niece and nephew in c onnection with a state-c ourt ac tion for neg lect instituted ag ainst two of Sefa ’s sisters. Sefa claimed that the Cabinet violated his rig hts under th e F ir s t, Four th, and Four

teenth Amendments to the United States Constit ution, suing under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. He also raised c laims under se vera l other fe dera l statutes in his complaint. The district co u rt d i s m i s s ed Sefa’ s complaint for failure to state a claim. Sefa appea ls,

rea sserting his claims for monet a r y and decla

ratory relief

, as well as “see k[i ng ] [an] injunctive order ”

The Honora

ble Peter C. Economus, United States Senior District J udg e for the Norther n * District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation.No. 12-5455 - 2 -
direc ting the Cabinet to rele ase his niece and nephew from state custody and to halt all “spiritual attacks” ag ainst his family

. We review d e n o v o a district court’s dismiss al of a complaint for failure to state a claim.
Guzman v. U.S. Dep’ t of Homeland Sec. , 679 F.3d 425, 429 (6th Cir. 2012). Sefa’ s claims ag ainst the Cabinet are barr ed by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constit ution. The Eleventh Amendment “bar s all suits, whether for injunctive, decla ratory or monetary relief

, ag ainst the state and its depar

tments.” Thiokol Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, State of Mich., Revenue Div. , 987 F.2d 376, 381 (6th Cir. 1993). Be cause Kentucky has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunit y and Congr ess has not abrog ated state sovere ign immunit y under sections 1981 an d 1 983 or any other fede ral statute cited by Sefa, his claims ag ainst the Cabinet cannot proce ed. See Hafford v. Seidner , 183 F.3d 506, 512 (6th Cir. 1999) (re cog nizi ng that section 1981 claims ag ainst a state a g ency are barr ed by the El eventh Am endment); W hittingt on v. Milby , 928 F.2d 188, 193–94 (6th Cir. 1991) (re cog nizi ng that section 1983 claims a g a in s t a s tate ag ency are barr ed by the Eleventh Amendment).
Moreove r, the Cabinet is not a “per son” subject to suit under section 1983. See W ill v. Mich. Dep’ t of State Police , 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
We g ener ally would not aff irm the dismiss al of a p ro s e plaintiff’s civil-rig hts complaint based solely on a pleading defic iency (her e, Sefa’ s naming of a state ag ency as the defe ndant instead of an appropr iate state officia l who can b e sued under the civil-rig hts statutes) that is cura ble by amendment. See Brown v. Matauszak , 415 F. App’x 608, 615–16 (6th Cir. 2011) (re manding case for district court to provide pro s e p l ai n t i ff , alleg ing a civil-rig hts claim under section 1983, with opportunity for leave to amend to cure pleading defic iencies wher e plaintiff stated “non-f rivolous” and “per haps even m er i t orious” claim). The district court, howeve r, did not dismiss Sefa’ s complaint on the sole basis of Eleventh Amendment immunit y but addre ssed whether Sefa’ s claims

wer e plausible. We conclude that Sefa’ s complaint woul d be subject to dismiss al even if he substitut ed a proper defe ndant for the Cabinet. First, to the extent Sefa seeks a decla ration that theNo. 12-5455 - 3 -
state’s child-custody deter mination was unlawful, an injunction for the minor children’ s rele ase, and monetary dama g e s a

r is in g f r o m th e c h ild-custody decision, these claims “constitute collater al attacks

on the state court judgme nts terminating [hi s sisters]’ pare ntal rig hts and [were] proper ly excluded from considera

tion by the [di strict] court[] .” Stephens v. Haye s , 374 F. App ’x 6 20, 623 (6th Cir. 2010); see Ank

enbrandt v. Richards , 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992). Second, Sefa lacks standing to asser t claims on behalf of the minor children, as he does not establish that he has pare ntal rig hts over them, see Stephens , 374 F. App’x at 622 (citing Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow , 542 U.S. 1, 17–18 (2004)) , or on behalf of his sisters, since a plaintiff
g ener ally cannot rest his claims on t h e l eg al rig hts or interests of third parties and Sefa does not establish that his sisters cannot vindicate their own interests, see Norton v. Ashcroft , 298 F.3d 547,
555 (6th Cir. 2002). Third, to the extent Sefa seeks an order direc ting the Cabinet (or any proper ly substitut ed state officia l) to ha lt spiritual attacks a g ainst his family , he fails to a lleg e any plausible fac ts to sug g est that the state ag ency or any state officia l is responsible for such attacks. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Nor has Sefa established how a fede ral court has t he ca pacity to redre ss such alleg ed har ms. Four th, Sefa cannot asser

t a private rig ht of action under any of the fede ral criminal statutes

on which he bases claims for relief

. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D. , 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cog nizable interest in t h e prosec ution or nonprosec ution of another .”). L astly , he cannot asser t a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 57b, which applies to civil actions by the Fe dera l Trade Commi ssion f or violations of rules and cea se and desist order s respe cting unfair

or dece ptive acts or prac tices. See Alfred Dunhill Ltd. v. Interstate Cigar Co. , 499 F.2d 232, 237 (2d Cir. 1974) (“[T]he provisions of the Fe dera l Trade Commi ssion Act may be enforced only by the
Fe dera l Trade Commi ssion.”). The district cour

t’s judgme nt is affirmed.