White et al v. Department of Child Protective Services et al, No. 5:2017cv00439 - Document 8 (E.D. Ky. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION: It is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. White's Complaint 1 is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 2. This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court's docket; 3. A corresponding judgment will be entered this date. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 11/28/2017.(KM)cc: COR, Pltf via U.S. mail
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
White et al v. Department of Child Protective Services et al Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON RUBY WHITE, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, ET AL., Defendants. *** *** Civil No. 17-439-JMH MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER *** *** Ruby White is a resident of Richmond, Kentucky. Proceeding without a lawyer, White filed a complaint in which she names Kentucky’s Department of Child Protective Services and multiple social workers as defendants. [R. 1]. The Court will dismiss White’s complaint because she has not demonstrated that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. After all, many of White’s statements are unintelligible and, while White suggests that her claims arise under the Fourteenth Amendment, it appears that she is simply complaining about an ongoing child custody dispute. [R. 1 at 4- 7]. The Sixth Circuit has repeatedly made it clear that “[f]ederal courts have no jurisdiction to resolve domestic relations disputes involving child custody.” Partridge v. State of Ohio, 79 F. App’x 844, 845 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992)); see also Danforth v. Celebreeze, 76 F. App’x Dockets.Justia.com 615, 616 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[F]ederal courts lack jurisdiction where the action is a mere pretense and the suit is actually concerned with domestic relations issues.”). Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. White’s complaint [R. 1] is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2. This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court’s docket. 3. A corresponding judgment will be entered this date. This 28th day of November, 2017. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
