Nolan v. Scott et al

IN THE UNITED 	STATES 	DISTRICT 	COURT
FOR 	THE 	DISTRICT 	OF 	MARYLAND
:
STEPHEN 	NOLAN
:
v. 	: 	Civil 	Action 	No. 	DKC 	26-442
LAURA HERRERA SCOTT, Secretary, 	:
Maryland Department of Human
Services, et al. 	:
MEMORANDUM 	OPINION
Plaintiff Stephen Nolan (“Plaintiff”) filed this Complaint on
February 3, 2026. 	(ECF No. 1). 	He asserts that his constitutional
rights were violated by Defendants 	Laura 	Herrera 	Scott, 	Secretary
of 	the 	Maryland 	Department 	of 	Human 	Services, 	and 	Fran 	Johnson,
Director of the 	Maryland Child 	Support 	Enforcement 	Administration
(IV-D Program), in the performance of child support enforcement by
failing 	to 	adjudicate 	matters 	on 	the 	merits 	and 	by 	failing 	to
provide 	an 	explanation 	for 	decisions. 	Plaintiff 	also 	filed 	a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 	(ECF No. 2). 	Based
on 	the 	information 	submitted 	by 	Plaintiff, 	he 	appears 	to 	be
indigent, 	and 	the 	motion 	will 	be 	granted. 	For 	the 	reasons 	that
follow, 	however, the court 	will 	dismiss 	the 	Complaint 	pursuant 	to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Plaintiff filed this Complaint 	in 	forma 	pauperis 	pursuant 	to
28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1915(a)(1), 	which 	permits 	an 	indigent 	litigant 	to
commence an action in this court without prepaying the filing fee.
Case 8:26-cv-00442-DKC Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 5

2
To 	guard 	against 	possible 	abuses 	of 	this 	privilege, 	the 	statute
requires dismissal of 	any claim 	that 	is 	frivolous 	or 	malicious 	or
fails to state a claim on which 	relief 	may 	be 	granted. 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 	1915(e)(2)(B)(i) 	and 	(ii). 	This 	court 	is 	mindful, 	however, 	of
its 	obligation 	to 	construe 	self-represented 	pleadings 	liberally,
such 	as 	the 	instant 	Complaint. 	See 	Erickson 	v. 	Pardus, 	551 	U.S.
89, 	94 	(2007). 	In 	evaluating 	such 	a 	complaint, 	the 	factual
allegations 	are 	assumed 	to 	be 	true. 	Id. 	at 	94 	(citing 	Bell
Atlantic 	Corp. 	v. 	Twombly, 	550 	U.S. 	544, 	555–56 	(2007)).
Nonetheless, 	liberal 	construction 	does 	not 	mean 	that 	this 	court
can 	ignore 	a 	clear 	failure 	in 	the 	pleading 	to 	allege 	facts 	which
set forth a cognizable claim. 	See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs.,
901 	F.2d 	387, 	391 	(4th 	Cir. 	1990); 	see 	also 	Beaudett 	v. 	City 	of
Hampton, 	775 	F.2d 	1274, 	1278 	(4th 	Cir. 	1985) 	(stating 	a 	district
court 	may 	not 	“conjure 	up 	questions 	never 	squarely 	presented”).
In making this determination, “[t]he 	district 	court 	need 	not 	look
beyond the complaint’s allegations . . . . 	It must, however, hold
the 	pro 	se 	complaint 	to 	less 	stringent 	standards 	than 	pleadings
drafted by attorneys and must read the complaint liberally.” 	White
v. White, 	886 F.2d 721, 722-723 	(4th 	Cir. 	1989).
Case 8:26-cv-00442-DKC Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Plaintiff’s Complaint begins with the following introduction:
1. 	This 	is 	a 	civil 	rights 	action 	seeking
prospective declaratory 	and 	injunctive 	relief
and 	compensatory 	damages 	for 	ongoing
violations of procedural due process under the
Fourteenth Amendment.
2. 	Plaintiff 	does 	not 	seek 	review, 	reversal,
modification 	or 	appeal 	of 	any 	state 	court
judgment. 	Plaintiff 	does 	not 	ask 	this 	Court
to sit as an appellate tribunal over any state
decision.
3. 	Instead, 	Plaintiff 	challenges 	ongoing 	and
future 	enforcement 	conduct 	by 	state 	agencies
that 	continues 	without 	adjudication 	on 	the
merits, without 	findings 	of 	jurisdiction, 	and
without 	procedural 	explanation, 	despite
repeated filings and 	proper 	service.
4. 	Defendants’ 	actions 	and 	omissions
constitute 	a 	continuing 	deprivation 	of
constitutional 	rights, 	independent 	of 	the
validity 	or 	invalidity 	of 	any 	past 	state
order.
(ECF No. 1 at 1, 2). 	As relief, Plaintiff asks that Defendants be
enjoined 	from 	further 	enforcement 	absent 	lawful 	adjudication, 	a
declaration 	that 	Defendants’ 	ongoing 	enforcement 	conduct 	is
unconstitutional, 	and 	compensatory 	damages. 	(ECF 	No. 	1 	at 	5).
The 	complaint, 	however, 	is 	bereft 	of 	any 	factual 	allegations,
providing no case numbers, dates, parties, or copies of any orders
about which he purports to complain. 	Plaintiff merely states that
his 	Complaint 	centers 	on 	unspecified 	enforcement 	conduct 	and 	he
complains that matters were not 	decided 	on 	the 	merits 	and 	without
Case 8:26-cv-00442-DKC Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 5

4
procedural 	explanation. 	He 	does 	not 	identify 	how 	the 	named
defendants 	were 	responsible for 	any 	alleged 	misconduct.
While 	lacking 	any 	factual 	support, 	the 	Complaint 	obviously
arises from Plaintiff’s discontent 	with 	decisions 	issued 	in 	child
support 	proceedings. 	The 	pendency 	of 	state 	court 	proceedings,
particularly 	in 	the 	family 	law 	context, 	raises 	significant
questions about 	this court’s 	jurisdiction 	and 	ability 	to 	proceed.
In 	cases 	attempting 	to 	invoke 	diversity 	jurisdiction, 	federal
jurisdiction is 	clearly lacking.
[A] 	question 	of 	federal 	court’s 	jurisdiction 	of 	child
custody 	matters 	is 	not 	an 	extensive 	inquiry. 	In 	fact,
“[the 	Fourth Circuit] 	has 	consistently 	acknowledged 	and
upheld 	this 	lack 	of 	federal 	court 	jurisdiction 	in 	the
area 	of 	domestic 	relations. 	Doe 	v. 	Doe, 	660 	F.2d 	101,
105 	(4th 	Cir. 	1981); 	see 	also 	Johnson 	v. 	Byrd, 	No.
1:16cv1052, 	2016 	WL 	6839410, 	*1, 	*13 	(M.D.N.C. 	2016)
(noting 	that 	“[t]he 	case 	may 	not 	proceed 	in 	this 	court
for 	a 	number 	of 	reasons. 	First, 	it 	involves 	matters 	of
family law. Such issues have traditionally been reserved
to 	the 	state 	or 	municipal 	court 	systems 	with 	their
expertise 	and 	professional 	support 	staff. 	Under 	the
domestic 	relations 	exception 	to 	federal 	jurisdiction,
federal 	courts 	generally 	abstain 	from 	review 	of 	such
cases”) (internal citation 	omitted).
Roe 	v. 	Jenkins, 	No. 	1:20-CV-140, 	2021 	WL 	1026524, 	at 	*2 	(N.D.W.
Va. Mar. 17, 2021).
Here, 	Plaintiff 	attempts 	to 	invoke 	federal 	question
jurisdiction 	in 	a 	possible 	attempt 	to 	evade 	that 	doctrine.
Nevertheless, generally applicable abstention doctrines counsel in
Case 8:26-cv-00442-DKC Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 5

5
favor 	of 	dismissing 	this 	action. 	Given 	that 	Plaintiff 	seeks
prospective relief, he clearly 	challenges 	state 	court 	proceedings
that 	are 	ongoing. 	See 	Parsons 	v. 	McDaniel, 	784 	Fed. 	App’x 	164,
165 (4th 	Cir. 2019)(applying 	Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37(1971)).
A 	comprehensive 	discussion 	of the 	various 	abstention 	doctrines 	is
provided 	in 	Desper 	v. 	Demastus, 	Case 	No. 	7:20-cv-00749, 	2021 	WL
5049773 	at 	* 2=4 (Nov. 1, 2021).
Accordingly, 	Plaintiff 	has 	failed 	to 	provide 	legally
sufficient 	allegations 	of 	violations 	of 	procedural 	due 	process
under 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1983. 	The 	court 	both 	declines 	to 	exercise
supplemental 	jurisdiction 	over 	any 	state 	law 	claims, 	28 	U.S.C. 	§
1367(c)(3), 	and 	likely 	lacks 	jurisdiction 	due 	to 	the 	domestic
relations 	exception. 	Institution 	of 	a 	federal 	action 	cannot
substitute 	for an appeal of an 	adverse 	ruling 	by 	the 	state 	court.
Plaintiff’s 	avenue 	of 	redress 	might 	be 	through 	the 	appellate
process 	in 	the 	state 	court. 	This 	court, 	however, 	lacks
jurisdiction 	to 	hear 	the 	case, 	and, 	in 	any 	event, 	Plaintiff’s
complaint fails 	to state a 	claim.
A 	separate order follows.
/s/
DEBORAH 	K. 	CHASANOW
United 	States 	District 	Judge
Case 8:26-cv-00442-DKC Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 Page 5 of 5