Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wilson-Johnson v. Walker

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

April 5, 2018

TONY WILSON-JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
v.
KIOSHIA M. WALKER, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM

          BEETLESTONE, J.

         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.

         I. FACTS

         On February 20, 2018, Wilson-Johnson, as a "free indigenous [A]merican man, " was "ordered against [his] will to appear in Philadelphia Family [C]ourt without being charged with a crime or breach of the [peace]." (Compl. at 6.) He alleges that he was told that if he did not appear, he would be "threaten[ed] with arrest and unfair wage garnishment by Margaret T. Murphy and Timothy Gerard." (Id.)

         When Wilson-Johnson arrived "under threat of arrest, duress and coercion" at the hearing, he "instantly handed Timothy Gerard a signed, dated and [n]otarized Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right." (Id. at 7.) He also "proceeded to document all statement being made in the open court proceeding." (Id.) When Gerard observed this, he "call[ed] a sheriff in the room to stop [Wilson-Johnson] from documenting." (Id.) Wilson-Johnson then requested that a stenographer be present, and Gerard replied "we don't do that at this level." (Id.) Gerard then "stop[ped] the hearing and ordered the sheriff to rush [Wilson-Johnson] out as [he] was being unlawfully remove[d] from a public office." (Id.) Gerard told Wilson-Johnson's son's mother that "he had everything he needed to move forward without [his] consent." (Id.)

         On March 9, 2018, Wilson-Johnson "received two letters in the mail ordering [him] to pay a monthly fine of $117.70 and ordered to pay for forced health insurance to cover [his] son." (Id.) The letters stated that he could request a hearing, but that the deadline to do so was March 12, 2018, "leaving [Wilson-Johnson] no time to exercise the right." (Id.) On March 12, 2018, Wilson-Johnson "was ordered back into court under threat of arrest, duress and coercion again by Margaret T. Murphy and Samantha Magras to continue to violate [his] right by ordering [him] to give Kioshia M. Walker sole physical and sole legal custody of [his] son . . . against [his] will and without [his] consent." (Id.)

         Wilson-Johnson contends that throughout custody proceedings, Murphy, Magras, and Gerard had the "responsibility to respect and protect [him] from violation of federal constitutional rights." (Id. at 6.) He alleges that all Defendants "received notice of [his] right to remain a private [A]merican and all willfully ignore[d] [his] request, and continued to enter unlawful orders without [his] consent and/or knowledge." (Id.) He contends that he is in constant fear of being falsely arrested and jailed. (Id.)

         As relief, Wilson-Johnson asks the Court to "uphold [its] oath to the [C]onstitution and dismiss all cases pertaining to [him] and [his] son." (Id.) He requests that the Court order the Philadelphia Family Court "and all other government agencies to remove [his] name from any and all [U]nited [S]tates government documents that would in the future pull [him] back into . . . court." (Id.) Wilson-Johnson also asks "to be left alone to live as a free indigenous [A]merican." (Id.)

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         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).

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Request for Dismissal of State Case

         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.

         B. Claims Under ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.