Huntley v. Lucas County Division of Child Support Services, Lucas County Ohio, No. 5:2018cv00588 - Document 6 (E.D. Ky. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Huntley's 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED and payment is WAIVED. 2. Huntley's 1 complaint is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 3. This action is STRICKEN from the Court's docket. 4. A corresponding Judgment will be entered this date. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 11/5/2018.(JJ)cc: COR, Pro Se Plaintiff via US Mail
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Huntley v. Lucas County Division of Child Support Services, Lucas County Ohio Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON EDWIN HUNTLEY, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 5:18-588-KKC v. LUCAS COUNTY DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, ET AL., MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendants. *** *** *** *** Edwin Huntley is a resident of Clay City, Kentucky. Proceeding without a lawyer, Huntley filed a complaint in which he names the Lucas County Division of Child Support Services and Lucas County, Ohio, as defendants. [R. 1]. Huntley also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. [R. 3]. The Court will grant Huntley’s fee motion because he lacks sufficient assets or income to pay the filing and administrative fees in this case. That said, the Court has conducted an initial screening of Huntley’s complaint and will dismiss it because he has not demonstrated that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. After all, many of Huntley’s statements are unintelligible and, while Huntley suggests that his claims arise under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, as well as his “unenumerated right to privacy,” it appears that he is simply complaining about a dispute involving child support payments. [R. 1 at 4-5]. The Sixth Circuit has repeatedly made it clear that federal courts simply have no jurisdiction to resolve domestic relations disputes, such as the one apparently at issue in this case. See, e.g., Partridge v. State of Dockets.Justia.com Ohio, 79 F. App’x 844, 845 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992)); Danforth v. Celebreeze, 76 F. App’x 615, 616 (6th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Huntley’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [R. 3] is GRANTED and payment of the filing and administrative fees is WAIVED. 2. Huntley’s complaint [R. 1] is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 3. This action is STRICKEN from the Court’s docket. 4. A corresponding Judgment will be entered this date. Dated November 5, 2018. 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.
