Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180405_0000849.EPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:03:59+00:00

Document:
KIOSHIA M. WALKER, et al., Defendants.
Tony Wilson-Johnson filed this pro se civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Kioshia M. Walker, Administrative Judge Margaret T. Murphy, Custody Master Samantha Margras, and Conference Officer Timothy Gerard, asserting claims arising from custody proceedings that occurred in the Family Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia. He has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Wilson-Johnson leave to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss his Complaint.
The Court will grant Wilson-Johnson leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears that he is not capable of prepaying the fees to commence this action. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) applies to Wilson-Johnson's Complaint. That statute requires the Court to dismiss the Complaint if it fails to state a claim. Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to determine whether the complaint contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). Conclusory statements and naked assertions will not suffice. Id. The Court may also dismiss claims based on an affirmative defense if the affirmative defense is obvious from the face of the complaint. See Ray v. Kertes, 285 F.3d 287, 297 (3d Cir. 2002); see also McPherson v. United States, 392 Fed.Appx. 938, 943 (3d Cir. 2010). Furthermore, the Court may also consider matters of public record. Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006). As Wilson-Johnson is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
As noted above, Wilson-Johnson requests that this Court "dismiss all cases pertaining to [him] and [his] son." (Compl. at 6.) Pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, however, "federal district courts lack jurisdiction over suits that are essentially appeals from state-court judgments." Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 165 (3d Cir. 2010). Based on that principle, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives a federal district court of jurisdiction over "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." Id. at 166 (quotations omitted). Accordingly, to the extent Wilson-Johnson seeks review and reversal of any of the orders entered by the Family Court in his custody matter, the Court lacks jurisdiction to do so.

References: § 1983
 § 1915
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.