Howell v. The Cumberland County Department of Social Services

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 2/3/2015. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 2/4/15)

,FILED
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIClfiH!lijRl1F MJI.RYlM!D
FOR THE DISTRICT OF

MARYfum:¥B

*

LAKESHIA HOWELL

CLERWS OFFICE

AT BALTIMORE

*

Plaintiff
v.

8Y __

'O. __

DEPUTY

Civil Action No. JKB-15-275

*

THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

-4" AMII: 33

*

*
Defendant

•• *
MEMORANDUM

On January 30, 2015, the Clerk received a complaint signed by self-represented plaintiff
Lakeshia Howell, claiming that her three children were seized from her during a weekend visit to
Fayetteville, North Carolina in October of2011.1

ECF No. I, p. 2. Howell, a Maryland resident

who brings this claim based on diversity jurisdiction,2

seeks money damages from the

Cumberland County, North Carolina, Department of Social Services and requests "full custody
with pick up willi no contact with father(s)."
forma pauperis (ECF No.2)

ECF No. I, p. 3. Howell's motion to proceed in

accompanied the complaint and shall be granted.

Her emergency

motion requesting she be permitted to immediately "pick up" her children (ECF No.3) shall be
denied and the complaint dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Child custody matters may not be heard in this court.3 See Raftery v. Scoll, 756 F.2d 335,
343 (4th Cir. 1985) (domestic relations exception to federal courts' jurisdiction based on idea

I It appears the children may have been placed in foster care because Howell was homeless or resided in a shelter.
Howell alleges that two of the children are in North Carolina, and one child is in Maryland. ECF No.3, pp. 2-3.

2 To the extent that Howell is suing for a violation of civil rights (see Civil Cover Sheet, ECF NO.1-I,
p. I), the
court notes that venue more appropriately lies in North Carolina, where the controversy arose and where two of the
children allegedly reside.

The court notes that if Howell is aggrieved by action taken in Cumberland County, North Carolina, she should
pursue her claim in the appropriate state court within that jurisdiction.

3

that state has a stronger, more direct interest); Wasserman v, Wasserman, 671 F.2d 832 (4th Cir.
1982) (diversity jurisdiction

does not include power to grant divorces, determine alimony or

support obligations, or decide child custody rights); Cantor v. Cohen, 442 FJd

196 (4th Cir.

2006) (citing Cole v, Cole, 633 F.2d 1083, 1087 (4th Cir. 1980) (noting federal courts "generally
abstain from child custody matters"».
Howell's

The merits of the decisions made regarding the taking of

children by North Carolina authorities are inextricably intertwined in every claim

asserted in the complaint; such review by this court is not permitted. The case will be dismissed
by separate order.

C2~g:3~
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

2