United States District Court, D. Kansas
KARIM N. JALLAD, Plaintiff,
RONNIE M. BEACH and KATIE B. LECLUYSE, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
MURGUIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the court upon defendant Katie B.
LeCluyse's Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. 7) and defendant
Ronnie M. Beach's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Doc. 9).
December 30, 2016, plaintiff Karim N. Jallad filed his
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming
violations of various rights. The facts of plaintiff's
complaint involve the state court divorce proceedings between
plaintiff and his former wife Cyntia Espada. Defendant
LeCluyse, a therapist at Behavioral Health Specialists, was
hired by plaintiff and Ms. Espada prior to their divorce, to
help their minor daughter understand plaintiff's frequent
travel. Plaintiff's work as a chemistry professor in
Kuwait requires frequent travel. During the divorce
proceedings, the state court appointed defendant Ronnie M.
Beach to act as a parenting coordinator. Plaintiff brings
alleges that defendant Beach violated plaintiff's
fundamental and due process rights by deciding to: suspend
plaintiff's parenting schedule, eliminating two overnight
visits with his daughter; shorten plaintiff's Skype
sessions with his daughter to two 20-minute sessions per
week; and allowing Ms. Espada to take their daughter to
Puerto Rico for one week, and Dallas for five days.
II alleges that defendant Beach violated plaintiff's
Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches
and seizures by monitoring and watching plaintiff's Skype
sessions with his daughter.
III alleges that defendant Beach's actions denied
plaintiff equal protection of the laws because they favored
Ms. Espada, allowed her to travel with their daughter, while
restricting plaintiff's parental rights.
IV alleges that defendants “conspired . . . to block
Jallad form [sic] accessing the minor child's medical
records by being INCONSISTANT and INVENTING unconstitutional
Rules and Policies.” (Doc. 1 at 11.) Plaintiff argues
that defendants' conspiracy violated his Fourteenth
Amendment right to the care, custody, and control of his
plaintiff proceeds pro se, “the court shall dismiss the
case at any time if the court determines that . . . the
action or appeal-(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court
construes the pro se party's filings liberally and holds
them to less stringent standards than pleadings filed by
lawyers. Barnett v. Corr. Corp of Am., 441 F.
App'x 600, 601 (10th Cir. 2011). Pro se plaintiffs are
nevertheless required to follow the Federal and Local Rules
of practice and the court does not assume the role of
advocating for plaintiff. United States v. Porath,
553 F. App'x 802, 803 (10th Cir. 2014). For the reasons
explained below, the court finds that plaintiff fails to
state a claim.
of jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1)
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, as such, must
have a statutory basis to exercise jurisdiction.”
Montoya v. Chao, 296 F.3d 952, 955 (10th Cir. 2002).
The party asserting subject-matter jurisdiction has the
burden to establish it. Id.
“[i]t is well-established that federal courts lack
jurisdiction over the whole subject of domestic relations of
husband and wife, and parent and child.” Hunt v.
Lamb, 427 F.3d 725, 727 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting
Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992)
(quoting Ex parte Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94
(1890))). This is not a removal action from state court, but
plaintiff's claims and especially the facts he describes,
read like a list of complaints about the actions taken by a
Johnson County Court-appointed parenting coordinator. To the
extent plaintiff is trying to raise substantive issues
regarding the divorce and child custody proceedings, this
court does not have jurisdiction and it is the sole province
of the Johnson County Court to address plaintiff's
concerns about those proceedings. To the extent that
plaintiff does assert claims under federal statutes, the
court will address those claims.
argues that this court has subject-matter jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that
“[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction
of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.” Plaintiff's
complaint “must identify the statutory provision under
which the claim arises, and allege sufficient facts to show
that the case is one arising under federal law.”
Martinez v. ...