United States District Court, D. New Jersey
RAYMOND J. DAVIDSON, SR., Plaintiff,
PROBATION CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SERVICES, BURLINGTON COUNTY FINANCIAL DIVISION, PSI SECURITY & INVESTIGATIONS, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, and CAMDEN COUNTY PROBATION, Defendants.
RAYMOND J. DAVIDSON, SR.CHERRY HILL, N.J. 08003 Pro se
BUSHWICK DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TRENTON, NEW JERSEY 08625
Attorney for Defendants Probation Child Support Enforcement
Services, Burlington County Financial Division, New Jersey
Department of Human Services, and Camden County Probation.
MARIE VARISCO QUINTAMOS RIETO WOOD & BOYER Attorney for
Defendant PSI Security & Investigations.
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
case concerns civil rights claims brought under 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1981, 1983, and 1985. Plaintiff alleges
incorrect information regarding child support obligations and
payments led to his incarceration for failure to pay.
Currently before the Court are Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss and Plaintiff's Motion for Default. For the
reasons discussed herein, State Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss will be granted and Defendant PSI's Motion to
Dismiss and Plaintiff's Motion for Default will be
denied, as moot.
Court takes its recitation of facts from Plaintiff's
Complaint and Amended Complaint. The actions complained of
occurred between 2003-2018. The matter stems from child
support obligations and payments, and whether Plaintiff has
made those payments. It appears that a recent calculation
provided by Plaintiff puts the arrears at around $30, 000.
Plaintiff alleges that number is incorrect. This incorrect
number, according to Plaintiff, is “due to the
negligence of the defendants by failing to properly enter
infoformation [sic] supplied to them each year, ” a
failure to take into account changes in status, like his
homelessness, and Joe Enedetti's - an employee of
Burlington County's probation office - failure
“toenter orders as far back as 1999 [and] . . .
fail[ure] to give a proper acouting [sic] and . . . credtit
[sic] for payments in 2004 in the sum of $3, 000.00.”
evidence of the wrongfulness of this conduct, Plaintiff
alleges multiple New Jersey state court judges have commented
that Burlington County Probation “is the
problem.” As a result, Plaintiff claims he “was
arrested and dataianed [sic] under fause pretence [sic] strip
serch embaressed [sic].” Plaintiff claims in 2007,
2016, and 2017 he was incarcerated for a total of
November 6, 2018 Plaintiff filed a complaint against the
Administrative Office of the Courts, Probation Services
Division, Child Support Enforcement Services
(“Enforcement Services”), the State of New Jersey
Judiciary, Burlington Vicinage Finance and Probation
Division, the State of New Jersey Department of Human
Services, the State of New Jersey Judiciary, Camden Vicinage
Finance Probation Division (the “Probation
Division” and, collectively, the “State
Defendants”),  and PSI Security & Investigation
(“PSI”). Plaintiff claims civil rights violations
under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985 against all
Defendants. The same day, this Court granted Plaintiff's
application to proceed in forma pauperis and the
Clerk filed Plaintiff's Complaint. Summons were issued
thereafter. On November 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint adding the Probation Division and charges under 18
U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 245 against all Defendants.
requests four types of relief: (1) an injunction against
Enforcement Services to block any retaliation for filing the
complaint, (2) an injunction ordering an independent audit to
determine the proper amount of child support owed, (3)
compensatory damages in the amount of $378, 747.14, and (4)
declaratory judgment concerning a portion of the Social
Security Act and its application to child support
January 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction. On January 16, 2019, State Defendants filed
opposition and a Cross-Motion to Dismiss. On January 28,
2019, Defendant PSI filed a Motion to Dismiss. On January 29,
2019, this Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction. On March 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Default against Defendant PSI. On May 6, 2019,
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel. On May 22, 2019,
Defendant PSI requested the Court hold a status conference.
Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams held a status conference
on June 18, 2019. Judge Williams directed Plaintiff to file
opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and
dismissed Plaintiff's Motion to Compel as moot.
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and Plaintiff's Motion
for Default have been fully briefed and are ripe for
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over this action