Moses Bob Pessima v. Antionette Katumu Pessima, born Antoinette Katumu Anderson, and South Dakota Division of Child Support

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota granted Moses Bob Pessima leave to proceed in forma pauperis and screened his pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court dismissed without prejudice his claims against the South Dakota Division of Child Support on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds and dismissed his claims against Antionette Katumu Pessima for failure to state a claim, including failure to plead fraud with particularity. The court entered the order on May 19, 2026.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff who demonstrates insufficient funds to pay the filing fee may be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and Pessima's financial affidavit established that he qualified.
2. The South Dakota Division of Child Support, as a division of the South Dakota Department of Social Services and an arm of the State of South Dakota, is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit under § 1983 absent a valid waiver; Pessima's claims against it were dismissed without prejudice.
3. Pessima failed to state a § 1983 claim against his former wife because he did not allege that she acted under color of state law or participated in joint action with state actors.
4. Pessima failed to plead his fraud claims with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), so those claims were dismissed without prejudice.
5. The court declined to allow amendment of the fraud claims because Pessima did not establish either diversity jurisdiction or federal-question jurisdiction over claims concerning state child-support payments.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Pessima should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis based on his financial affidavit.
2. Whether the South Dakota Division of Child Support was immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and therefore subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
3. Whether Pessima stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against his former wife by adequately alleging state action or joint action with state actors.
4. Whether Pessima pleaded his fraud claims with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
5. Whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the fraud claims against the former wife.

Disposition

other