Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

10-27-2005 Kliesh v. Bucks Cty Domestic Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-4714

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "Kliesh v. Bucks Cty Domestic" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 330. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/330

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected].

APS-6 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 04-4714 ________________ JOHN C. KLIESH, Appellant v. BUCKS COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS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 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,

we will summarily affirm the District Court.1 Kliesh’s motion for a stay is denied. No exceptional reason warrants granting Kliesh’s motion for an expedited appeal, so that motion also is denied.

In coming to this conclusion, we have considered the arguments set forth in Appellant’s brief, filed for the Court’s information.