Alston v. Dore et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 10/6/2015. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 10/7/15)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Solltllem Dh';s;oll
c::J
....;
*
I
RONNIE LEE ALSTON,
Plaintiff,
"
'-'fT1
c);o
i
c:J
;:;;
-'u>
;0'
<=
:Po,
I
*
...•
:u~
-c:
n
I
. g~ a-
*
l.....
1J
UJ1'1
CaseNo.: G.JH-15;263~
v.
.. -rr'!
'
*
THOMAS 1'. DORE and
CHARLES HIRSCH,
oF.
,,-
'-'u>"
0'-'..,,::or
:t0fTI
»-10
;0"
_
....;0
,c
Cl
-<
:Po::O
....•
*
::;
*
r:
i5
*
*
*
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Ronnie Lee Alston. a self-represented plaintiff: filed this Complaint on September 4.
2015. accompanied by a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. He will be granted leave to
proceed in !iJrma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.c.
* 1915(a)( I) because his financial aflidavit
indicates that his only source of income is disability payments. For the reasons that liJllow. the
Complaint must be dismissed.
Plaintiff seeks to set aside a forcclosure proceeding against his home on the basis that
service was not properly effected and false evidence was provided to the state court in the
context of that procecding.lle
statcs that thc foreclosure procceding took place in20l3
while he
was in the process of modi(ying or re-financing the loan pursuant to the Homeowners
Affordability and Refinancing Plan. Executive Ordcr. ECF No. I at 2. Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants accept cd payment in February 2013 and had attorneys initiate fiJreciosure two
months later. Id. at I. He claims the proccedings violated his right to due process and that
Defendants violated the Fair I-lousing Aet./d. at 2. Plaintiffand both Defendants namcd residc in
Maryland.
Under the "well-pleaded
complaint"" rule, see Flying Pigs. LLC
1'.
RRA.! J-)-anchisin)!,.
LLC, 757 F.3d 177. 181 (4th Cir. 2014). the facts showing the existence of subject matter
jurisdiction
"must be aflinnatively
191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir. 1999)."A
limited jurisdiction
Pinkley. Inc.
alleged in the complaint:'
court is to presume.
unless and until jurisdiction
therefore.
P.
Cily on'/'ederick.
that a case lies outside its
Uniled Slales \'.
has been shown to be proper:'
Poole. 531 F.3d 263. 274 (4th Cir. 2008). Moreover. the "burden of establishing
jurisdiction
is on ...
(20 I 0): lvlcBlImey
Rohh E\"IIns & Assocs .. LLC \'. Holihaugh.
the party asserting jurisdiction:'
609 F.3d 359. 362 (4th Cir. 2010); accord lIertz
1'.
Friend. 599 U.S. 77. 95.130
Cliceinelli. 616 F.3d 393.408
S. Ct. 1181
(4th Cir. 20 I 0). Foreclosurc
1'.
under state law do not give rise to federal question
actions brought
subjcct-mattcr
jurisdiction.
Moah Tiara Cherokee Kifllll'ah Nalion Chi4 No. 3:08-cv-00293-FDW.
Sept. 3. 2008) (stating that nothing in the "simple
real property
the presence of a federal question").
suggests
not state a claim that may be brought under this Court's
Under 28 U.S.c.
*
between citizens of different
citizenship
foreclosure
*
of every defendant:'
exclusive
over all civil
or interest and costs. and is
1332(a) (2012). The statute "requires
among parties. meaning that the citizenship
does
federal question jurisdiction.
exceeds $75.000.
states. 28 U.S.c.
action of
Thus. the instant Complaint
1332(a). a federal district court has original jurisdiction
actions where the amount in controversy
diversity
See MeNeely,'.
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
81471. at *1-2 (W.D.N.C.
...
subject matter
complete
of every plaintiff must be diflercnt
fi'OIll the
Cenl. W Va. Energy Co.. Inc. ". Mounlain Slale Carhon. LLC
636 F .3d 101. I 03 (4th Cir. 20 I I). The citizenship
of the parties in this case are not diverse.
therefore
under this Court's
the instant action may not be maintained
2
divcrsity jurisdiction.
Even if the above-noted jurisdictional deficiencies were removed. the matter assel1ed
may not be addressed by this Court as it seeks what is in essence appellate review of a final
decision issued by a state coul1. Under the Rooker-Feldmalll
abstention doctrine. "a 'party losing
in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state
judgment in a United States district court. ... Am. ReliaMe IllS. v. Slilhrel/. 336 F.3d 311. 316 (4th
Cir. 2003).2 "[T)he Rooker-Feldmall doctrine ... by elevating substance over
1()fIll.
preservcs the
independence of state courts as well as congressional intent that an appeal from a state court
decision must proceed through that state' s system of appellate review rather than inferior federal
courts:' Id. at 391. Simply put. if Plaintitr s state law claim is harred by res.i udicata and
collateral estoppel in the Maryland state courts, the claim is also barred in this Court.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. ~1915(e)(2). this Court is authorized to sua sponte dismiss
complaints which fail to state a claim. 28 U.S.c. ~1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). By separate Order
which follows. the Complaint shall be dismissed.
Dated:
October ~ 2015
GEORGE.I. HAZEL
United States District .Iudge
I D. C CA. v. Feldman. 460 U.S. 462. 482 ( 1983): Raaker v. Fidelity Trllst Ca .. 263 lJ .S. 413. 416 ( 1923).
2 This Court may raise the Rooka-Feldman
n.5 (41h Cir.1997).
doctrine sua sponte. Jordahl
,
.,
\0.
Democratic farty. 122 F.3d 192. 197
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?