Sewell v. Wagner

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 7/27/2016. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)(C/M 7/27/16)

Download PDF
FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THF: UNITEI) STATF:SDISTRICT COUR"rOISTRICT OF HARYLAtHl FOR T11F:DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Suuthcrn ZOlb JUL 21 P 3: 32 Division CLERK'S OFFICE AT GREEHSELT * STARSHA M. SF:WELL, "'-."1 flY_ * Plaintiff, * v. * DAVID WAGNER, * Dcfendant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MF:MORANDUi\I OPINION Thc abovc-captioncd mattcr was liled on Junc 30. 2016. togcthcr with a iVlntion tn in Forma Paupcris. ECF NO.2. l3ecausc PlaintilI Procccd indigent. Starsha M. Scwcll. appcars tn bc hcr motion shall be grantcd. but for thc reasons that lollnw the Cnll1plain! must bc dismissed. Thc selt~rcpresentcd Ordcr previously the Maryland pleading 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 aftirmed is cntitlcd Nnticc of Rcmoval] No. JFM-12-2736 thc custody of hcr childrcn and was rcmandcd ovcr the suhject matter of the underlying I\ld. 2(12) there docs 1101 appear 10 to rcmovc to this ('ourt bccausc this Court docs not IHl\'c casco Plaintiff now appears to allcgc that hoth this Court's r From th~ context of the Complaint. attempting to remove to this COlirt. (I). Slip Op. Nn. I~-1231 (unpuhl ishcd) (4th Cir. 2014): see also ECF No. 1-2. Thc statc case PlaintilTattcmptcd jurisdiction 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. concerncd of an 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 conspiracy 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 represcnted Plaintifrs in this action, David Wagncr. appears to be the attorney \vho ex-spouse in the child custody proceedings. against Wagner in thc Complaint Plaintiffs 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 Moutstatous and [Prince George's County Dcpartment 1(", conspiring with Artcmis 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 ("RICO")] 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 "victim's crime board": ordering the Office of Personncl Management information from Plaintiffs Plaintiffliled credit report and employment this Complaint 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, U.S.c. * 1915(c)(2)(I3)(i)-(ii). construe sclt~rcpresented 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 ... L 2 U,S, 89.94. 127 S. C\. 1197 (1007). In cvaluating such a Complain\. to bc truc. Jd. at 93 (citing B~IIAI/al1lic Corp. assumcd S. C\. 1955 (1007»). Nonctheless, liberal construction I', 7\l'olllhly. thc Illctual allcgations 550 U,S, 544. 555-56. docs notmcan claim, s~~ Wei/('/' D~p'I o(Soc, Sal's .. 90 I F.1d 387 (4th Cir. 1990): .\~~ "/.10 Bealld~1I \'. /lalllploll. presented."). complaint's pleadings In making this determination. allcgations, 711. 712-13 up qucstions I', 775 F.1d 1274, nc\'cr squarcly "[tJhe district court nced not looK beyond the , , . It must hold thc pro sc complaint dratied by attorneys 127 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 arc and must read the complaint to Icss stringcnt standards than Whil~ I', Whil~. 886 F.1d libcrally." (4th Cir. 1989), Evcn when the instant Complaint is affordcd libcral construction, it fllils to statc a claim upon which rclief may be granted, Thc prior Order issucd by this Court remanding Plaintiffimpropcrly any cnforceable attempt cd to removc contained no directivc 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 s~~ C;lIr/~y 587 (4th Cir. 1969): s~e a/so 18 Circuit cannot be read to mandate thc Maryland The Complaint instcad is a recitation also contains of Plaintiffs to thc statc court that instillcd litigating hcr claims in that f'>nUll. commanding a statc court to cntcrtain \', SIII'('/'ior Cowl o(;\/~ck/~lIhllrg U.s.c. ~ 1361. a casc that COIlII!.I', 411 F.1d 58(1. Thus, thc Ordcrs of this Court and thc Fourth courts to hcar Plaintiffs no Illctual allegations regarding now Ilulliliar thcorics of conspiracy claims. thc named Defendant. but 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 prosccution seeks a mandatc against this Dcfendant. requiring law cnforccmcnt PlaintilThas no enll)rccable 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 threatened with prosecution): f(Jrce statc to prosccute The Complaint jurisdiction: authority when he himselfis neither prosecuted or Saltier \'. Johnson. 857 F.2d 224. 227 (4th Cir.1988) (no right to others under equal protection clause). also sceks to revisit a matter ovcr which this Court docs not have the custody of Plaintilrs children. Domestic relations cases. including child custody matters. may not be heard in this Courl. See Rafiel)' \'. Scott. 756 F. 2d 335. 343 (4th Cir. 1985) (explaining the domestic state has a stronger. relations exception more direct interest): 1982) (diversity jurisdiction support obligations. to federal courts' jurisdiction based on idea that Wasserman \', Wasserman. 671 F. 2d 832 (4th Cir. does not include po\\'er to grant divorces. determine alimony or or decide child custody rights): Cantor \'. Cohen. 442 F.3d 196.202 (4th Cir. 2006) (citing Cole \'. Cole. 633 F.2d 1083. 1087 (4th Cir. 1980» (noting !'cderal courts "generally pleading abstain Irom hearing child custody matters"), tiled in this case that the matter of the custody of Plaintilfs intertwined because the Complaint granted. it will be dismissed July children is incxtricably in every aspect of the claims asserted, Accordingly. Dated: It is clear in reading the se\l~represented 21 .2016 fails to state a claim upon which relief can be by separate Order to lollow. &E- 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?