John C. Kliesh v. BUCKS COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS On Appeal From the United States District Court For…

APS-6 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-4714
________________
JOHN C. KLIESH,
Appellant
v.
BUCKS COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-04403)
District Judge: Honorable Clarence C. Newcomer
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
October 6, 2005
Before: SLOVITER, MCKEE AND FISHER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed October 27, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
John C. Kliesh filed a complaint against Bucks County Court of Common Pleas
Domestic Relations Division (“Domestic Relations Division”) relating to alleged wrongs
stemming from the filing of documents and the entry of an order in child support

-- 1 of 3 --

2
proceedings. Ruling on the Domestic Relations Division’s motion, the District Court
dismissed the complaint because the Domestic Relations Division is not a person under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and because a federal court cannot enforce state law against state
officials acting in their official capacities. Kliesh moved for reconsideration, which the
District Court denied. Kliesh appeals. He also moves to stay the underlying Domestic
Relations Division child support order and to expedite this appeal.
We will affirm because no substantial question is presented on appeal. See L.A.R.
27.4. As the District Court concluded, the named Defendant, the Bucks County Court of
Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division, is not a person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See
Callahan v. City of Phila., 207 F.3d 668, 674 (3d Cir. 2000). Furthermore, to the extent
Kliesh brings claims against a Domestic Relations Division judge or other employee, a
federal court cannot enforce state law against a state official acting in his or her official
capacity. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106 (1984). The
Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars the review of a state court child support order, review that
Kliesh sought in District Court through his complaint, and seeks in this Court through his
motion for a stay of the support order. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus.
Corp., 125 S. Ct. 1517, 1521-22 (2005). In addition, there were no grounds for
reconsideration of the District Court’s order dismissing Kliesh’s complaint. Therefore,

-- 2 of 3 --

In coming to this conclusion, we have considered the arguments set forth in1
Appellant’s brief, filed for the Court’s information.
we will summarily affirm the District Court. Kliesh’s motion for a stay is denied. No1
exceptional reason warrants granting Kliesh’s motion for an expedited appeal, so that
motion also is denied.

-- 3 of 3 --