BROWN v. BROWN (2019)

OPINION *

Jason Brown filed in the District Court a collection of state court documents under the mistaken belief that doing so was the next step in the appeals process for his child custody case in Schuylkill County.¹ The District Court permitted Brown to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The District Court then dismissed his action with prejudice because it neither resembled any pleading contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nor presented “any case or controversy over which this Court has jurisdiction or can grant relief.” ECF 3 at 2. Brown appealed; we have jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291; and our review is plenary, see SEC v. Infinity Grp. Co., 212 F.3d 180, 186 & n.6 (3d Cir. 2000); Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).

Dismissal of Brown’s case with prejudice was proper, for the reasons stated by the District Court. Additionally, the District Court was not obligated to sua sponte offer leave to amend, cf. Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 252-53 (3d Cir. 2007), and amendment would have been futile, regardless, see, e.g., Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992) (holding that divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees fall under “domestic relations exception” to federal courts’ subject matter jurisdiction); Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 166 (3d Cir. 2010) (setting forth test for application of jurisdictional bar of Rooker-Feldman doctrine). Accordingly, the judgement of the District Court will be affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Brown’s Notice of Appeal, see ECF 5 at 1, pro se opening brief, and related appeal, see Brown v. Brown, 775 F. App’x 722 (3d Cir. 2019), all confirm as much.

PER CURIAM