Richardson v. Richman et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------x
WALLICK RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff,
- against -
GABRIELLA F. RICHMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
25-CV-5155 (PKC) (MMH)
PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:
On September 18, 2025, Plaintiff Wallick Richardson, proceeding pro se, commenced this
action against four New York State Family Court administrative officers in their official capacity
alleging violations of his civil rights and challenging his child support obligations. (See Compl.,
Dkt. 1, at ECF1 at 50–52.) 	By Order dated October 21, 2025, the Court concluded that it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over his Complaint and ordered Plaintiff to file a submission on or
before November 20, 2025, explaining why his claims should not be dismissed. (Mem. & Order,
Dkt. 5, at 1.) It explained that “[s]ince Plaintiff’s claims concern only the enforcement and validity
of a state court’s child support order, this case falls under the scope of the domestic-relations
abstention doctrine,” which in turn directs federal district courts “to abstain from exercising subject
matter jurisdiction over claims involving domestic relations issues when those claims can be fully
and fairly determined in the state courts.” (See id. at 3 (first citing Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Block, 905
F.2d 12, 14 (2d Cir. 1990); then citing Deem v. DiMella-Deem, 941 F.3d 618, 621 (2d Cir. 2019);
then citing Legister v. Radowitz, No. 20-CV-9330 (LLS), 2020 WL 7405672, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.
1 Citations to “ECF” refer to the pagination generated by the Court’s CM/ECF docketing
system and not the document’s internal pagination.
Case 1:25-cv-05155-PKC-MMH Document 6 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
16, 2020); and then citing Myers v. Sara Lee Corp., No. 08-CV-1421 (KAM), 2009 WL 10706711,
at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2009)).)
The Order thus stated that if Plaintiff failed to file a submission explaining why this Court
should exercise subject matter jurisdiction over his claims, the Court would dismiss this action
without prejudice and without providing Plaintiff further opportunity to be heard. (Id.) The Court
has not received any filings from Plaintiff since. 	Accordingly, the action is dismissed without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment and close this case. The Clerk
of Court is also respectfully requested to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to note the
mailing on the docket. Although Plaintiff has paid the filing fee to initiate this action, the Court
certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in
good faith and, therefore, denies Plaintiff in forma pauperis status for the purpose of an appeal.
See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Pamela K. Chen
Pamela K. Chen
United States District Judge
Dated: December 15, 2025
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:25-cv-05155-PKC-MMH Document 6 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>