Valentine-Dey v. State of Maryland et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 12/5/12. (c/m)(hmls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MANSUR AKIL JELANI VALENTINE-DEY, *
Ex Rel: Timothy Maurice Valentine
*
*
Plaintiff,
*
*
v
*
Civil Action No. ELH-12-3335
*
STATE OF MARYLAND, et al.
*
*
Defendants
*
***
MEMORANDUM
Mansur Akil Jelani Valentine-Dey, also known as Timothy Maurice Valentine, has filed a
complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, the
motion will be denied and this case will be dismissed.
Plaintiff’s pleading, titled “Legal Notice of Removal,” was filed against the State of
Maryland, Anne Arundel County Circuit Court, Anne Arundel County Office of Child Support
Enforcement, Wendy A. Weeks, Special Counsel, Baltimore County Office of Child Support
Enforcement, and the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration. He seeks damages and asks this
court to order defendants to end enforcement of his court-ordered child support payments.
Plaintiff, who identifies himself as a Moorish-American, appears to claim that orders entered
against him are invalid because he is not subject to the laws of Maryland or the United States.
The federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, provides indigent litigants with
an opportunity for meaningful access to the federal courts, despite their inability to pay the costs
and fees associated with that access. To authorize a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis, a court
must determine whether the litigant is unable to pay the cost of commencing the action. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). In this case, plaintiff neither submitted his request on the appropriate form,

nor provided sufficient information about his financial status so as to enable this court to
determine whether he qualifies to proceed as an indigent, without payment of the filing fee.
Therefore, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis shall be denied.
Even were plaintiff to demonstrate financial eligibility for in forma pauperis status, the
complaint would be subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(h)(3).1 The claims raised in this complaint involve matters of family law, issues
traditionally reserved to the state or municipal court systems with expertise and professional
support in these areas. See Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 435 (1979); see generally Ankenbrandt
v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 701–05 (1992) (under the domestic relations exception to federal
jurisdiction, federal courts do not have the power to intervene with regard to such matters).
Further, under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine,2 a federal court does not have jurisdiction in a civil
matter to overturn a state court judgment, even when the federal complaint raises allegations that
the state court judgment violates a claimant's constitutional or federal statutory rights. The
Rooker–Feldman doctrine precludes federal court action “brought by state-court losers
complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court
proceedings commenced.” Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Saudi Basic Industries Corporation,
544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005).
For the aforesaid reasons, this case will be dismissed. A separate order follows.

Date: December 5, 2012

/s/
Ellen Lipton Hollander
United States District Judge

1

This rule states: “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
2

See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Company, 263 U.S. 413, 415–16 (1923); District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482–86 (1983).
2