Severance v. State of Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION (at Covington) BYRD SEVERANCE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 2: 21-049-DCR ) v. ) ) STATE OF KENTUCKY CABINET ) MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, ) AND ORDER ) Defendant. ) *** *** *** *** Byrd Severance is a pretrial detainee being held at the Mason County Detention Center in Maysville, Kentucky. Proceeding without a lawyer, Severance has filed a civil rights Complaint with this Court. [Record No. 1] The Court has conducted an initial screening of that Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and will dismiss it for multiple reasons. First, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While Severance utilizes the approved E.D. Ky. 520 Civil Rights Complaint Form, suggesting that his claim arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , it is clear that he is simply complaining about a child custody dispute that is ongoing in state court. In relevant part, Severance names the state of Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services as the sole defendant in this action before alleging that he is the “legal parent” of his daughter and that “the mom . . . took her” across state lines even though she did “not have any rights at the time.” [Record No. 1 at 1-2]. Severance then refers to at least two cases in state court [Record No. 1-1 at 1], and publicly-available records show that there is at least one other relevant, active domestic relations case ongoing in state court. See Land v. Severance, No. 20-CI-00237 (Mason Cir. Ct. 2021), https://kcoj.kycourts.net/CourtNet (last accessed on April 6, 2021) (involving a pending petition for child custody). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has repeatedly held that “[f]ederal courts have no jurisdiction to resolve domestic relations disputes,” such as the one at issue in this case. Partridge v. State of Ohio, 79 F. App’x 844, 845 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992)); see also Danforth v. Celebrezze, 76 F. App’x 615, 616 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[F]ederal courts lack jurisdiction where the action is a mere pretense and the suit is actually concerned with domestic relations issues.”). Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction regarding Severance’s claim. Next, even if this Court had jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims, it could not grant Severance the relief he is seeking. Severance repeatedly says that he wants three individuals “brout [sic] up on charges for breaking the law.” [Record No. 1 at 4-5]. A request to file criminal charges, however, must be directed to law enforcement officials.1 While this is a court of law that may resolve criminal charges filed by federal prosecutors, it does not file such charges itself or order law enforcement officials to file them against others. In short, Severance’s request for relief is simply unavailing. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Severance’s Complaint [Record No. 1] is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 1 Severance may be trying to file such a request with the United States Attorney’s Office. After all, he wrote “Attn Fedral [sic] State Attorney” on the envelope he mailed to the Clerk of this Court. [Record No. 1-3] Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, the Court will direct the Clerk’s Office to mail a copy of Severance’s Complaint and this Order to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Kentucky. 2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. 3. This action is STRICKEN from the docket. 4. Inasmuch as Severance wrote “Attn Fedral [sic] State Attorney” on the envelope he mailed to the Clerk of this Court [Record No. 1-3], the Clerk’s Office is directed to mail a copy of Severance’s Complaint [Record No. 1] and this Order to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Dated: April 7, 2021. Danny C. Reeves Chief Judge ake wy United States District Court “ae ~—- Eastern District of Kentucky -3-