Graves et al v. White et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 8/16/2016. (c/m 8/16/16 ca2s, Deputy Clerk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
RODNEY RYAN GRAVES and
DEAL VA SIMMONS GRAVES,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SAMUEL 1. WHITE,
WILLIAM A. WHITE,
ERIC D. WHITE,
SAMUEL 1. WHITE, P.e. and
CYNTHIA CALLAHAN,
Civil Action No. TDC-16-1067
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 11,2016, Plaintiffs Rodney Ryan Graves ("Mr. Graves") and DeAlva Simmons
Graves ("Ms. Graves"), who are self-represented, filed a Complaint against Defendants Samuel
1. White, William A. White, Eric D. White, Samuel 1. White, P.e., and Judge Cynthia Callahan
of the Circuit Court for Montgomery
committed
various constitutional
County, Maryland.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
and civil rights violations in connection with state court
foreclosure proceedings in which all parties were involved.
Presently pending before the Court
are Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Issuance of Summons and Emergency Motion for Hearing
on Docket Entries 2, 3, and 4. For the reasons that follow, the Court lacks jurisdiction
Plaintiffs' Complaint.
AS MOOT.
over
The Complaint is therefore DISMISSED, and the Motions are DENIED
BACKGROUND
I.
State Court Proceedings
According to the Maryland Judiciary Case Search website, of which this Court takes
judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, on April 26, 2013, a foreclosure action
was filed against Ms. Graves in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland.
See
O'Sullivan, v. Graves, No. 376661V (Montgomery Cty. Cir. Ct. Apr. 26, 2013), available at
http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/.
An attorney at the Virginia Beach, Virginia law
firm of Samuel I. White, P.C. is counsel for the plaintiffs in the foreclosure action. At several
points during the state court proceedings, Plaintiffs filed joint motions, even though Ms. Graves
was the only named party in the action.
On December 1,2014, the sale of the Property was reported.
On January 8, 2015, Ms.
Graves filed exceptions to the foreclosure, and on January 26, 2015, she filed a motion for an
injunction.
On March 30, 2015, the circuit court (Callahan, J.) denied both the exceptions and
the motion.
On Aprill0,
property.
2015, the circuit court (Callahan, J.) issued an order ratifying the sale of the
An auditor's report of the property was issued on June 1,2015, to which Ms. Graves
filed exceptions on June 18, 2015.
The circuit court (Debelius, J.) entered a final order of
ratification on the auditor's report on June 25, 2015.
On March 15, 2016, OWB REO, LLC,
which the circuit court docket lists as an "other party" to the litigation, id, filed a motion for
judgment awarding possession.
On April 8, 2016, Ms. Graves filed her opposition to the motion
along with a motion to strike. On April 18, 2016, the circuit court granted OWB REO, LLC's
motion, and on June 7, 2016, Ms. Graves was evicted from the Property.
2
II.
The Complaint
Construed liberally, the Complaint alleges violations of the United States Constitution
and Maryland Declaration of Rights arising from a foreclosure action in the Circuit Court for
Montgomery
County relating to a property located on Heather Avenue in Takoma Park,
Maryland ("the Property").
The Complaint asserts claims against Judge Callahan, who presided
over some of the foreclosure proceedings, and against Samuel I. White, William A. White, Eric
D. White, and Samuel I. White, P.C. ("the Samuel I. White, P.C. Defendants"), who Plaintiffs
claim "initiated a wrongful foreclosure." See CompI. at 9, ECF No. 1.
With respect to Judge Callahan, Plaintiffs dispute her finding that Mr. Graves had no
standing to appear on his or Ms. Graves's behalf in the foreclosure action and note that they filed
a grievance against Judge Callahan with the Commission on Judicial Disabilities, which the
Commission dismissed. Plaintiffs allege that Judge Callahan exceeded her authority in rendering
this decision and "intentionally disregarded [Plaintiffs'] protected constitutional and civil Rights
'because of their race and color'" Id. at 7.
As for the Samuel I. White, P.C. Defendants, Plaintiffs claim that they wrongfully
purchased the Property.
Plaintiffs allege that the Samuel I. White, P.C. Defendants initiated a
wrongful foreclosure action against Ms. Graves, that the alleged foreclosure purchase was not a
"true arm's length transaction," and that they lacked authority to delegate a substitute trustee to
institute foreclosure. Id. at 9. Plaintiff also take issue with the veracity of an affidavit submitted
by an attorney, as well as the existence of a legal contract and the enforcement of default in the
foreclosure action.
In sum, Plaintiffs' claims arise from various actions and inactions taken
during and in relation to the foreclosure action.
3
DISCUSSION
This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the Graves' claims. Federal courts are
courts of limited jurisdiction and generally may hear only claims that arise under federal law or
meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. ~~ 1331, 1332 (2012); Exxon Mobil
Corp v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005).
"[A] federal court is obliged to
dismiss a case whenever it appears the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction."
Lovern v.
Edwards, 190 F.3d 648,654 (4th Cir. 1999); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). "Determining the question
of subject matter jurisdiction at the outset of the litigation is often the most efficient procedure."
Lovern, 190 F.3d at 654.
As a preliminary matter, the Graves have alleged that this Court has diversity jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.c. ~ 1332. However, the parties in this case are not diverse; Plaintiffs have
alleged that both they and Judge Callahan are residents of Maryland.
See 28 U.S.c.
~
1332(a)(1). Therefore, there is no diversity jurisdiction in this case. See 28 U.S.C. ~ 1332.
Moreover, and crucially, this Court lacks jurisdiction
Rooker-Feldman
doctrine.
over the Complaint under the
See generally Rooker v. Fid Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C.
Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The Rooker-Feldman
courts from reviewing state court judgments.
doctrine bars federal
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 itself violates the loser's federal rights."
Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994).
If applicable, the Rooker-Feldman
the Court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction.
Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 292 (2005).
doctrine prevents
See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic
The Rooker-Feldman
4
Johnson v. De
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 F3d at 279 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
The Rooker-Feldman
doctrine applies here.
This action is plainly based upon the
foreclosure proceedings in the circuit court and Plaintiffs' disagreement with that court's
decisions. Plaintiffs allege that "Judge Callahan acts in variance with her public duties" and that
she "acted in clear absence of all jurisdiction." Compi. at 3, 15. The defendants in this case are
either judges or attorneys involved in the state court foreclosure case, and the exhibits attached to
the Complaint consist of documents from the circuit court proceedings, including court orders
and hearing transcripts.
To the extent the Graves raise claims that do not directly seek to overturn the circuit
court's decisions, such claims are "inextricably intertwined" with the state court ruling and thus
barred by the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. See Washington, 407 F.3d at 279. For example, to
decide that the Samuel I. White, P.C. Defendants submitted a false affidavit would require the
Court to reverse the circuit court's decision to accept that affidavit, which is barred under the
doctrine. See Smalley v. Shapiro & Burson, LLP, 526 F. App'x 231, 236 (4th Cir. 2013).
Likewise, to decide that the Samuel I. White, P.C. Defendants wrongfully brought a foreclosure
action against them would require the Court to reverse several of the circuit court's decisions to
allow the proceedings to move forward, and to decide that they made false and defamatory
statements in bringing the foreclosure action would require the Court to reverse the same circuit
court decisions. Finally, any claim that Judge Callahan made decisions on a discriminatory basis
5
would necessarily require a finding that the decisions were, in fact, incorrect. Because Plaintiffs'
allegations against the Samuel I. White, P.C. Defendants are "inextricably intertwined" with the
state court rulings, and thus barred by the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over this action.l See Washington, 407 F.3d at 279.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing
reasons,
it is hereby ORDERED
that Plaintiffs'
Complaint
is
DISMISSED, their Emergency Motion for Issuance of Summons is DENIED AS MOOT, and
their Emergency Motion for Hearing on Docket Entries 2, 3, and 4 is DENIED AS MOOT.
A
separate Order shall issue.
..--~,-
Date: August 16,2016
THEODORE D. C
United States Dist .
1 The Court also notes that, even if subject matter jurisdiction existed, the claims against Judge
Callahan, which relate to her role as a judge, would be subject to dismissal under the doctrine of
judicial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991).
6
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?