Torkornoo v. Helwig Esq. et al

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Granting 9 Monahan's Motion to Dismiss; Granting 12 Ngole's Motion to Dismiss; Denying as Moot 22 Motion to Strike Ms. Torkornoo's Answer; Denying as Moot 24 Amended Motion to Strike Ngole's Motion to Dismiss; Denying as Moot 29 Second Amended Motion to Strike Monahan's Motion to Dismiss; Denying as Moot 31 Motion for Summary Judgment; Denying as Moot 41 Third Amended Motion for Injunctive Relief; Denying as Moot 42 Motion for Injunctive Relief; Dismissing Torkornoo's Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 5/6/2016. (c/m 05/06/2016 jf3, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

BISMARK KWAKU TORKORNOO,
Plaintiff,

v.
NINA HELWIG, ESQ.,
JOHN MONAHAN, ESQ.,
MARY TORKORNOO, and,
JACQUELINE NGOLE, ESQ.,

Civil Action No. TDC-15-2652

'

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

ORDER

Presently pending before the Court are multiple motions filed by Plaintiff Bismark
Kwaku Torkornoo ("Mr. Torkornoo"), a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant John Monahan,
Esq. on November 5, 2015, and a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Jacqueline Ngole, Esq.
on November 6, 2015.

The Motions are ready for disposition, and a hearing is not necessary.

See D. Md. Local R. 105.6. For the reasons set forth below, the Motions to Dismiss filed by
Monahan and Ngole are GRANTED, and Mr. Torkornoo's motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
BACKGROUND
On September 9, 2015, Mr. Torkornoo filed a Complaint against Defendants
Torkornoo

("Ms. Torkornoo"),

Mary

his former wife; Jacqueline Ngole, Esq, an attorney who

represented Ms. Torkornoo in divorce and child custody proceedings; Nina Helwig, Esq., the
"best interest attorney" for the Torkornoos' children; and John Monahan, Esq., the trustee over
the sale of the Torkornoos'

former marital home (collectively, "Defendants").

Mr. Torkornoo

filed an Amended Complaint on September 11, 2015 and a Second Amended Complaint on

October 13,2015.

His 65-page Second Amended Complaint contains three counts: interference

with parental rights, fraudulent misrepresentation,

and unjust enrichment.

A review of the

Second Amended Complaint reveals that Mr. Torkomoo's claims generally consist of allegations
of error and misconduct relating to the proceedings in Torkornoo v. Torkornoo, No. 71419FL
(Cir. Ct. Montgomery Cty. 2008) ("the Circuit Court case"), available at http://casesearch.courts.
state.md.us/casesearch/,

a state court family law case between him and Ms. Torkomoo.

This is not the first time Mr. Torkomoo has disputed those proceedings in this Court. In
fact, he has done so three times before.
0839 (D. Md. Mar. 31,2015)

In Torkornoo v. Ngole ("Torkornoo 1'), No. PJM-15-

(Messitte, l), ECF No.3,

Mr. Torkomoo filed a Complaint on

March 23,2015 against Ms. Torkomoo, Ngole, Helwig, Monahan-the
case-alleging

defendants in the present

abuse of process, conspiracy, negligence, and fraud on the court arising from

rulings by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County ("Circuit Court"), including the award to
Ms. Torkomoo of custody of their children and Monahan's
balance of a mortgage on the marital home.

alleged misrepresentation

of the

On March 31, 2015, the Court (Messitte, J.)

dismissed the case, finding that the case was "essentially an attempt to appeal in this federal
court various state court rulings in divorce and custody proceedings" and observing that "the
claims plainly involve issues of family law litigated in state court which traditionally have been
reserved to the state court systems so they can apply their expertise and professional support
staff." 1d at 4-5.
In Torkornoo v. Torkornoo ("Torkornoo 11'), No. PJM-15-0980, 2015 WL 1962271 (D.
Md. Apr. 29, 2015) (Messitte, J.), aff'd 607 F. App'x 341 (4th Cir. 2015), Mr. Torkomoo filed a
Complaint on April 6, 2015 against the same defendants, as well as Judge Cynthia Callahan and
Master Clark Wisor, two judicial officers connected to the Circuit Court case.

2

On April 29,

2015, the Court (Messitte, J.) dismissed the case, once again observing that the case "is
essentially an attempt to appeal in this federal court various state court rulings in divorce and
custody proceedings in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County."

Id. at *3. In Torkornoo v.

Callahan ("Torkornoo 111'), No. PJM-15-2445 (D. Md. Sept. 16, 2015) (Messitte, J.), ECF No.

3, aff'd 627 F. App'x 183 (4th Cir. 2015), Mr. Torkomoo filed another case on August 18,2015
against the same judicial officers, alleging "a catalogue of the reasons why the outcome" of the
Circuit Court case was "flawed and unjust."

Id. at 3.

On September 16, 2015, the Court

(Messitte, J.) dismissed that case because the officials had judicial immunity, which barred Mr.
Torkomoo's claims. Id. at 6.
DISCUSSION
In his Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6), Monahan asserts that Mr. Torkomoo raises substantially the same claims already
decided by the Circuit Court and by the United States District Court in Torkornoo I and
Torkornoo II. Similarly, in her Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(I) 12(b)(6), Ngole
asserts that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Mr. Torkomoo raises the same
claims decided by the Circuit Court. The Court agrees that it lacks jurisdiction and dismisses
this case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
I.

The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
The Rooker-Feldman

doctrine bars federal courts from reviewing state court judgments.

Washington v. Wilmore, 407 F.3d 274, 279 (4th Cir. 2005). "[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, based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment
violates the loser's federal rights."

itself

Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994).

3

If

applicable, the Rooker-Feldman
jurisdiction.

doctrine prevents the Court from exercising subject matter

See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280,292 (2005). The

Rooker-Feldman

doctrine bars consideration of "not only issues raised and decided in the state

courts, but also issues that are inextricably intertwined with the issues that were before the state
court" when "success on the federal claim depends upon a determination that the state court
wrongly decided the issues before it."

Washington, 407 F.3d at 279 (internal citations and

quotation marks omitted).
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies here. In his three prior federal court cases and in
this fourth one, Mr. Torkornoo has asserted different legal theories, but his complaints have
consistently amounted to requests for this Court to review and correct alleged flaws in the Circuit
Court proceedings.

Here, Mr. Torkornoo alleges financial harm resulting from the state court

ruling, identifies numerous alleged errors by the state court, and asserts that Defendants engaged
in misconduct that resulted in the state court rulings. To the extent he challenges the state court's
decisions, his claims are plainly barred by the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine.

To the extent he

alleges misconduct by Ms. Torkornoo or her attorneys, such allegations are similarly barred as
"inextricably

intertwined" with the Circuit Court rulings because they require this Court to

conclude that the state court "wrongly decided the issues before it." See Washington, 407 F.3d at
279.

Therefore, Mr. Torkornoo's

matter jurisdiction.

claims against Defendants are dismissed for lack of subject

Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over this case, Mr. Torkornoo's pending

motions are denied as moot.
II.

Sanctions
Monahan and Ngole have requested that the Court enter a fee award in their favor and

require Mr. Torkornoo to obtain approval before filing additional cases. "A motion for sanctions

4

must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that
allegedly violates Rule II(b)."

Fed. R. Civ. P. II(c)(2).

Monahan and Ngole's request that the

Court impose these sanctions is embedded withiil their Motions to Dismiss, in conflict with Rule
11. Therefore, their request is denied.

Nevertheless, the Court notes that Mr. Torkornoo has

filed four cases arising out of the same set of facts that have been dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.

These dismissals should indicate to Mr. Torkornoo that this Court simply is not the

proper forum for those claims.
Although the Court will not require that Mr. Torkornoo seek preapproval before filing
additional cases, the Court strongly recommends that Mr. Torkornoo review Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure II(b)-(c),

which provides that the Court may impose monetary sanctions against

a party for filing frivolous or baseless claims, prior to filing any additional cases with this Court.

5

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Monahan's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No.9, is GRANTED.
2. Ngole's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 12, is GRANTED.
3. Mr. Torkornoo's

Motion to Strike Ms. Torkornoo's

Answer, ECF No. 22, Amended

Motion to Strike Ngole's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 24, Second Amended Motion to
Strike Monahan's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 29, Motion for Summary Judgment; ECF
No. 31, Third Amended Motion for Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 41, and Motion for
Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 42, are DENIED AS MOOT.
4. Torkornoo's Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED.
5. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

~S:h ~

Date: May 6, 2016

THEODORE D. ~':J
United States Districntfcige

6