Conoco v. Johnson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
AIJOMA-PYNA: CONOCO (f/k/a Antonya- *
Darrell:Lindsey),
*
Plaintiff,
* 	Civ. No. DLB-26-599
v.
*
FRAN JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, PRINCE
GEORGE’S COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT 	*
ADMINISTRATION, et al.,
*
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On February 13, 2026, Aijoma-Pyna: Conoco filed a complaint against Fran Johnson, in
her official capacity as the Director of the Prince George’s County Child Support Administration;
Judge Darren Johnson, in his official capacity as an administrative judge; Stenise Rolle, in his
official capacity as an administrative judge; Maxwell Cohen of Robert A. Ades & Associates, P.C.;
and Kimberly Vanessa Handon-Lindsey. He alleges that the defendants violated his constitutional
rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment by suspending his
driver’s license and passport “for alleged child support arrears without constitutionally adequate
notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, or required findings regarding Plaintiff’s present
ability to pay.” ECF 1, at 2. He also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF 2, which is
granted, and motions for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, ECF 3 & 4.
Because the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the complaint, the case is closed. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3).
A federal district court does not hear all matters. The Court has “an independent obligation
to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.” Hertz
Case 8:26-cv-00599-DLB Document 6 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 3

Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (stating that if at any time a
court determines that it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, “the court must dismiss the
action”). The party filing suit in this Court bears the burden of establishing the Court’s subject-
matter jurisdiction. Robb Evans & Assocs., LLC v. Holibaugh, 609 F.3d 359, 362 (4th Cir.
2010); see Hertz, 599 U.S. at 96. This Court must construe liberally complaints filed by self-
represented plaintiffs such as Conoco. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
Conoco alleges his driver’s license and passport were suspended on the basis he had not
paid child support when, in fact, there was a record of the regular payments he had made. ECF 1,
at 5, 9–10. He also asserts that the administrative judges did not consider his ability to pay or his
status as an Indigenous American Indian. Id. at 9–10. He claims the defendants violated his
Fourteenth Amendment rights by not affording him notice and the opportunity to be heard. Id. at
5, 9.
Conoco filed this suit as a civil rights complaint raising federal questions over which
federal courts generally have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but the claims do not end the
Court’s jurisdictional inquiry. Conoco challenges a state court order regarding child support
payments. Under the Rooker-Feldman1 doctrine, federal courts lack 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.” T.M. v. Univ. of Maryland Med. Sys. Corp., 139 F.4th 344, 349 (4th Cir.
2025) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)); see
Adkins v. Rumsfeld, 464 F.3d 456, 463–64 (4th Cir. 2006). The doctrine applies if the plaintiff asks
the federal court to assume the state appellate court’s role. See T.M., 139 F.4th at 348, 354; Exxon
1 Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
Case 8:26-cv-00599-DLB Document 6 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 3

Mobil Corp., 544 U.S. at 284. The issues raised in the complaint—whether Conoco must pay child
support as ordered and whether his driver’s license and passport can be suspended for failure to
pay—have been fully adjudicated against Conoco by the state court. Because Conoco asks this
Court to undo the state court’s judgments, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies, and this Court
does not have jurisdiction. Conoco may seek appellate review of state court decisions in the state
appellate courts.
Accordingly, it is, this 18th day of February, 2026, hereby ORDERED:
1. 	Conoco’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF 2, IS GRANTED;
2. 	Conoco’s complaint IS DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3); and
3. 	The Clerk SHALL MAIL a copy of this Order to Conoco and CLOSE this case.
This dismissal does not prejudice Conoco’s right to seek relief in state court.2
Deborah L. Boardman
United States District Judge
2 Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action, the Court does not reach Conoco’s motions
for a temporary restraining order or preliminary relief.
Case 8:26-cv-00599-DLB Document 6 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 3