Graham v. Banks et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 9/11/2012. (c/m 9/1/12 rs) (rss, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
EDWARD GRAHAM, #370-436
*
Plaintiff
*
v
*
JORDAN BANKS
WICOMICO COUNTY NARCOTIC
TASK FORCE, et al.
*
Defendants
Civil Action No. PJM-12-1962
*
*
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this prisoner civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, self-represented plaintiff
Edward Graham (“Graham”) claims his Chevy Trail Blazer and Oldsmobile vehicles were
“stolen” by Defendants after his arrest.1 As relief, he asks for return of the vehicles or
compensation in the amount of $20,000. For reasons to follow, this case will be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
Graham pleaded guilty possession with intent of a large amount of controlled substance
and illegal possession of a regulated firearm. He complains he was not allowed to call witnesses
at the state forfeiture hearing, but acknowledge he was allowed to make a statement. ECF No. 4,
Plaintiff’s Supplement.
ANALYSIS
1
The Maryland Case Search website at http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry shows Graham
pleaded guilty on August 10, 2011, in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County to CDS possession with
intent and illegal possession of a firearm, and was sentenced to twenty years of incarceration with ten
years suspended on the CDS charge and five years on the firearms charge in case number 22K11000070.
A forfeiture hearing was held before the Honorable W. Newton Jackson on April 1, 2011. Cases Number
22C11000279 and 22C11000280. Graham’s appeal of the forfeiture to the Court of Special Appeals was
dismissed.
This Court must screen and dismiss prisoner actions which fail to state a claim on which
relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B) (ii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (B) (1). The
standard for evaluating whether an action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
is the standard for a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) which provides “a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint; importantly, it does not resolve
contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” Republican
Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir.1992) (citing 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur
R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356 (1990)). A plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations
are taken as true and the complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See
Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993).
Further, federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction: “[t]hey possess only that
power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Allapattah Services,
Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). A district court must determine whether a valid basis for
jurisdiction exists, “and dismiss the action if no such ground appears.” In re Bulldog Trucking,
Inc., 147 F.3d 347, 352 (4th Cir. 1998); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears ...
that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action”). While
the Court is mindful that Graham is a self-represented litigant and accords his pleadings liberal
construction, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam ), this does not mean
the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim
cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Department of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387
(4th Cir. 1990).
Graham does not allege any constitutional provision or federal law was infringed when
the subject property was forfeited.2 Where, as here, no federally cognizable claim is presented
for review, this Court must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Further, to the extent
Graham’s claim may be construed as an attack on an existing state court order of forfeiture, it is
barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine3 which holds that where a plaintiff seeks review and
reversal of a state court judgment in a federal district court, only the United States Supreme
Court may review state-court decisions. See Exxon Mobile Corporation v. Saudi Basic Industries
Corporation, 544 U.S. 280, 281 (2005); Davani v. Virginia Department of Transportation, 434
F.3d 712, 719 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, this case is also dismissible for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court will dismiss this case. A separate Order follows.
September 11, 2012
2
3
/s/
PETER J. MESSITTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Graham does not challenge the validity of his arrest or subsequent plea.
See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415–16 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482–86 (1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?