Sewell v. Wagner
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 7/27/2016. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)(C/M 7/27/16)
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
IN THF: UNITEI) STATF:SDISTRICT COUR"rOISTRICT
FOR T11F:DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ZOlb JUL 21 P 3: 32
STARSHA M. SF:WELL,
mattcr was liled on Junc 30. 2016. togcthcr with a iVlntion tn
in Forma Paupcris. ECF NO.2. l3ecausc PlaintilI
Starsha M. Scwcll. appcars tn bc
hcr motion shall be grantcd. but for thc reasons that lollnw the Cnll1plain! must bc
issucd by this Court rcmanding
and sccks enforccmcnt
a casc that Plaintiff attemptcd
Court of Spccial Appcals. See Sell'ell r. Ilml"l/rd.
at ECF NO.3. Plaintiffappcaled
is cntitlcd Nnticc of Rcmoval]
thc custody of hcr childrcn and was rcmandcd
ovcr the suhject matter of the underlying
to rcmovc to this ('ourt
bccausc this Court docs not IHl\'c
Plaintiff now appears to allcgc that hoth this Court's
r From th~ context of the Complaint.
attempting to remove to this COlirt.
Slip Op. Nn. I~-1231 (unpuhl ishcd)
(4th Cir. 2014): see also ECF No. 1-2. Thc statc case PlaintilTattcmptcd
to rCIl1O\'c fl"t)m
that dccision to thc Fourth Circuit Court of Appcals and it \\as
in an unpubl ishcd opinion. See Sell'ell \'. Iloll"(lI"ll.
Ordcr and thc Fourth Circuit's
be an underlying open slale case that PtailllitTis
decision affirming it requircd thc Maryland state courts to hear her claims regarding a vast
and public corruption
she belicvcs cxists and involvcs the Prince George's County
States Attorney, the Prince George's
County Police Dcpartment
the judge who heard the child
custody casc, Child Protective Scrvices, the Departmcnt of Social Scrvices, and the FBI. among
others. The named Defendant
in this action, David Wagncr. appears to be the attorney \vho
in the child custody proceedings.
against Wagner in thc Complaint
While thcrc arc no allegations
claim for relief as to Wagner is f()r this Court to
issue an Order requiring "the FBI to hold David Wagner accountable
and [Prince George's
of Social Servicesj workers against the
rights of my minor African American Christian male sons in \'iolation of Sarbanes Ox ley 1g
U,S,c. [*11519, !the Racketcer
* 1961 el seq.J, and 1R USc.
Inlluenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act Jig USc.
[* J 242:,2 ECF No. 1 at I I. Other relief sought by Plaint i1'1'
includes ordering the rcturn of her children to her custody because the state court judge \'iolated
the remand order: ordering the State of Maryland to repay child support "'om funds in the
crime board": ordering the Office of Personncl Management
credit report and employment
to remO\'C ad\'CJ'se
file: and damagcs 01'$100 million./d.
illjimllo pouperis pursuant to 2R U.S.c.
* 1915(a)( 1),
which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in this Court \\'ithout prcpaying the
tiling fee, To guard against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute requires dismissal of any
claim that is ti'ivolous or malicious,
or fails to state a claim on \\hieh rcliefmay
be granted. 2g
This Court is mindful. IllJ\\cver. of its obligation to liberally
pleadings, such as the instant Complaint
See !:'rick.\'oll". I'onlus, 551
Review of tile exhibits submitted by Plailltiffreveals that her primiJry grievance regarding the underlying
child custody case is that her report ofsc:'\lIal abuse of her children 10 Child Protective Services did not resull in the
criminal prosecution of the children"s flllhcr. ECF I-I at pp. I ...
127 S. C\. 1197 (1007). In cvaluating
such a Complain\.
to bc truc. Jd. at 93 (citing B~IIAI/al1lic Corp.
S. C\. 1955 (1007»). Nonctheless,
thc Illctual allcgations
550 U,S, 544. 555-56.
D~p'I o(Soc, Sal's .. 90 I F.1d 387 (4th Cir. 1990): .\~~ "/.10 Bealld~1I \'. /lalllploll.
In making this determination.
775 F.1d 1274,
"[tJhe district court nced not looK beyond the
, , . It must hold thc pro sc complaint
dratied by attorneys
that this Court can ignore a
clear failurc in thc pleading to allcgc facts which sct forth a cognizable
1178 (4th Cir. 1985) (stating that a district court may not "conjure
and must read the complaint
to Icss stringcnt
Whil~ I', Whil~. 886 F.1d
(4th Cir. 1989),
Evcn when the instant Complaint
it fllils to statc a claim
upon which rclief may be granted, Thc prior Order issucd by this Court remanding
attempt cd to removc contained
right to Plaintiff or her ability to continue
This Court has no jurisdiction
a motion or causc of action.
to issuc a writ of mandamus
587 (4th Cir. 1969): s~e a/so 18
Circuit cannot be read to mandate thc Maryland
instcad is a recitation
to thc statc court that instillcd
litigating hcr claims in that f'>nUll.
a statc court to cntcrtain
\', SIII'('/'ior Cowl o(;\/~ck/~lIhllrg
U.s.c. ~ 1361.
a casc that
411 F.1d 58(1.
Thus, thc Ordcrs of this Court and thc Fourth
courts to hcar Plaintiffs
no Illctual allegations
now Ilulliliar thcorics of conspiracy
thc named Defendant.
and public corruption
which she faults I,ll'. in cssence. cvery a,h'Crsc dccision or action taKcn against hcr. To thc cxtcnt
that thc Complaint
seeks a mandatc
against this Dcfendant.
agcncies to initiatc criminal
right to insist upon such action.
See Linda R.S. ". Richard D.. 410 U.S. 614. 619. 93 S. CI. 1146 (1973) (citizens lack standing to
contest the policies of the prosecuting
f(Jrce statc to prosccute
when he himselfis
Saltier \'. Johnson. 857 F.2d 224. 227 (4th Cir.1988) (no right to
others under equal protection
also sceks to revisit a matter ovcr which this Court docs not have
the custody of Plaintilrs
relations cases. including child custody
matters. may not be heard in this Courl. See Rafiel)' \'. Scott. 756 F. 2d 335. 343 (4th Cir. 1985)
state has a stronger.
more direct interest):
1982) (diversity jurisdiction
to federal courts' jurisdiction
based on idea that
Wasserman \', Wasserman. 671 F. 2d 832 (4th Cir.
does not include po\\'er to grant divorces.
or decide child custody rights): Cantor \'. Cohen. 442 F.3d 196.202
2006) (citing Cole \'. Cole. 633 F.2d 1083. 1087 (4th Cir. 1980» (noting !'cderal courts
abstain Irom hearing child custody matters"),
tiled in this case that the matter of the custody of Plaintilfs
because the Complaint
granted. it will be dismissed
in every aspect of the claims asserted,
It is clear in reading the se\l~represented
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
by separate Order to lollow.
GEORGE J, IIAZEL
United States District Judge
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?