The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mary L. Cooper United States District Judge
THE COURT issued an order to show cause why the purported appeal should not be dismissed under (1) the domestic relations exception, (2) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, or (3) the Younger abstention doctrine. (Dkt. entry no. 4.) This is a purported appeal by David Timothy Johnson, who appears pro se, from a September 15, 2005, order of the United States Bankruptcy Court, granting a motion to dismiss his case therein. (App. Not.)
A review of Johnson's submissions revealed that he:
complains of bias, prejudice and discrimination I experienced in NJ Superior Court in Camden, NJ, that violate and deprive me of my constitutional rights with my child in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and unlawfully takes away over 1/2 of my social security disability benefits that forced me into bankruptcy in the first place. . . .
[I have] suffered injury and extreme hardship as a result of Lillie Louella Howard, her attorneys and the judges' improper conduct and actions in NJ Superior Court in Camden . . . .
Judge Michael Kassel, J.S.C., misapplied, ignored, or distorted existing legal doctrine or analytical standard in that case. Judge Kassel's credibility determinations are erroneous, i.e., the 'clear preponderance of all relevant evidence' demonstrates that the determination was incorrect. Judge Kassel failed to address [my] particular remedial requests . . . .
Judgment based on false premises is void. . . . [I request] to sue for damages . . . for what state actors did to my child and I as they continue to violate and deprive us of our constitutional rights. [I seek] relief and damages for violation and deprivation of our constitutional rights, emotional distress and stealing of our disability benefits to give an appearance that I am behind in child support. . . . [I request] a full investigation and audit of my child support accounts and child custody plenary hearing trial in NJ Superior Court in Camden, New Jersey.
(10-4-05 Johnson Br., at 2-5 (as stated in original, except in brackets).)
Johnson seeks, inter alia, a "full investigation of [a certain] Child Support Account . . . and plenary hearing child custody trial in Family Division, New Jersey Superior Court in Camden County," and "removal of case from NJ Superior Court into Federal District Court of limited jurisdiction of [my] civil rights violation and deprivation complaint to join and sue named parties in this matter." (Id. at 7.)
Johnson apparently has appealed from a state-court order or judgment concerning the issues raised here, as he states that he "is still completing a brief for Appellate Division of Superior Court of NJ regarding this matter." (10-4-05 Johnson Designation, at 3. See 10-4-05 Johnson Br., at 3 (stating "Appellate Court of New Jersey Superior Court granted [me] relief to proceed as an indigent in this matter on 9-16-04" and "Supreme Court of New Jersey granted relief to [me] to relax copy requirements on 3-10-05").)
Johnson argues further that his "civil rights were violated in the NJ Superior Court in Camden concerning child custody" (10-4-05 Johnson Designation, at 2), and he:
filed a violation of civil rights complaint on 2-2-2004, against Lillie L. Howard, et al., in the Federal District Court, Honorable Joseph E. Irenas, presiding, that was subsequently dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . . . . [I request] to re-open/reinstate or renew civil rights complaint under indigency for the same continuing problem and reasons and join those parties to this case for relief, damages and punitive damages.
(Id. at 2-3. See 10-4-05 Johnson Br., at 2-3 (stating he paid "$150.00 to attempt to file violation of civil rights complaint on 2-5-04," and he is "try[ing] again to have the Federal District Court gain jurisdiction over this matter").) It appears that Johnson's complaint in a separate action brought in federal court - apparently seeking relief concerning the aforementioned state-court ...