Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-16-2006
Tauro v. Yet Unnamed Domestic
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-5483
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Tauro v. Yet Unnamed Domestic" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 578.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/578
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 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
DPS-289 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-5483
________________
JOHN J. TAURO
Appellant,
v.
A YET UNNAMED DOMESTIC RELATIONS
WORKER KNOWN AS WORKER ID $IATT;
ACE CASH EXPRESS, A Texas Corporation
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-1180)
District Judge: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti
_______________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
July 27, 2006
BEFORE: FUENTES, VAN ANTWERPEN and CHAGARES, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: August 16, 2006)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
John Tauro appeals from the District Court’s order, entered November 30, 2005,
dismissing his civil rights complaint. For the reasons below, we will summarily affirm
the District Court’s order.
On August 24, 2005, Tauro filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, against an unnamed domestic relations worker in the Family Division of
the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas and Ace Cash Express, a Texas
corporation licensed to conduct business in Pennsylvania. According to Tauro, the
domestic relations worker sent an unsigned and undocketed wage attachment order to Ace
requesting that money be withheld from Tauro’s paychecks because of past due child
support. Tauro claims he does not owe any child support. He seeks compensatory and
punitive damages. On November 15, 2005, the District Court directed Tauro to show
cause why the action should not be sua sponte dismissed on the basis of collateral
estoppel and the lack of state action. Tauro filed a response to the order but the District
Court determined that he failed to show cause why his case should not be dismissed.
Accordingly, the District Court dismissed the case with prejudice. Tauro timely
appealed. He has filed a motion for appointment of counsel on appeal.
We conclude that Tauro’s complaint was properly dismissed. We agree with the
District Court that Tauro’s claims against the domestic relations worker are barred by the
doctrine of collateral estoppel. As to the claims relating to Ace, the District Court held
that Tauro failed to explain how this entity acted under the color of state law. In Lugar v.
Edmonson Oil Company, Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 941 (1982), the Supreme Court held that a
private party’s joint participation with state officials in the seizure of disputed property is
2
sufficient to characterize that party as a “state actor.” However, even if Tauro can show
that Ace acted under color of state law under Lugar, his claim against Ace properly would
have been dismissed as barred by collateral estoppel. See Witkowski v. Welch, 173 F.3d
192, 198-99 (3d Cir. 1999). Tauro’s underlying claim is that his due process rights were
violated when the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas directed the collection of
child support arrears. This issue was adjudicated in a prior court decision. See D. Ct.
Order, 1.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that no substantial question is presented in
this appeal. We, therefore, will affirm the District Court’s judgment. Tauro’s motion for
appointment of counsel is denied.
3