WARREN v. MCGEOUGH et al
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER signed on 4/24/2015, that the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendant's motion to dismiss (Docket Entry 13 ) be GRANTED. Additionally, because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate any of Plaintiff's claims, the Court recommends that the action be dismissed in its entirety. (Daniel, J)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
TINIIS
!øARRE,N,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
V
LETITIA McGEOUGH,
SUSAN BRAY, and
GARY SCALES
Defendants
1,:13CY11,45
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This mattet is before the Coutt on DefendantLeitta McGeough's motion to dismiss
the complaint. (Docket Entry
13.)
The motion has been btiefed by Defendant and the
matter is tipe fot disposition. Fot the reasons that follow, the undetsigned recommends that
Defendant's motion be granted, and that this action be dismissed.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 23,
201,3,
Plaintiff Tinika Warren fìled her complaint in this Court
against Letitia McGeough, Gary Scales, and Judge Susan Bray, alleging violations of her civil
tights pursuant to vatious federal statutes, seeking damages in the amount of $1,000,000.
(See
Compl., Docket Entry 2.)
Âccording to the complaint and attachments thereto, this action adses from state
district court ptoceedings involving Plaintiff, specifically child support and custody
ptoceedings, and a domestic violence protective otder ptoceeding, or "508" proceeding.
It
appears undisputed that Defendant McGeough,l
^n ^ttotney
atLegal Âid of Notth Carolina,
represented Defendant Scales' and Plaintiffs minot son in the state court ptoceedings.
(See
Def.'s Mem. at 1, Docket Entry 14.)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant:
1) Violated my parental dghts, ignoted me when I told
het that I am the only one that has dghts to make
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
legal decisions for my minor child (15) yr old þinor
son's name].
The lawyer gave "false statements" to the court to
obtain an illegal 508. And harassed me inside the
coutthouse in the Clerk's office by chasing me
atound saylng I'm a take your son.
Defamation of chancter: In her court documents she
put me as the plaintiff for a "custody motion" that
she submitted.
Wotked outside het jurisdiction.
Misconduct.
Depdved me of my rights as a "legal patent."
These actions cause stress to me & [second minor
child's name] and our relationships with þinot
8)
child's name].
She coetced þnor child's name] (minor) what to
say'
(Compl. at 2, Docket Entry 2.) These allegations, fot the most part,
^ppe^r
to be directed at
Defendant; thete are no specific allegations in the complaint referdng to DefendantBray or
Defendant Scales.
(See
id. at 1,-4.)
Plaintiff filed several documents as attachments to the complaint, including: the
Memotandum and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge \X/illiam Webb transferring
the action ftom the Eastetn District of North Caroltna to the Middle District (Docket Entty
2-1 at1,-4);a series of letters from Plaintiff to the N.C. State Bar, "District Attotney Robert
t
Unless othelwise noted, when using the term "Defendant"
tefering to Defendant McGeough.
2
in this recommendation, the Court
is
James," Judge ï{/endy Enoch, and othet unidentified tecipients in which Plaintiff complains
about the eadiet state coutt ptoceedings involving PlaintifPs minot son (Docket Entry 2-1 at
5-1,4);
^
copy
of a Georgia statute relating to the ptocess fot legitimizing a patent-child
relationship under Georgia law (Docket F,ntry 2-2);
a document titled
"Reasons for
MOTION F'EDERAL CIVIL MOTION" which also references the earher North Catoltna
state court ptoceedings involving Plaintiffs minor son (Docket Entry 2-3); and an untitled
document that appears to lay out claims undet
Noth
Caroltna state
law. (Docket Entry
2-
4.)
This action appears to be neady identical to at least one othet action fìled by Plaintiff
in this district.
See lWarren u. McGeoaglt,
Civil Action No.
1:1,3-cv-1,1,44
M.D.N.C, filed Dec.
23, 201,4). In this prior case, Judge Bray was dismissed by Order of the district court on
-,\ugust
5, 201,4.
(1d., Docket
recommended that the action
and Scales.
1.6,
(See
Entty 27.) Additionally, the undersigned
in the prior case be dismissed
as
tecently
to Defendants McGeough
id., Docket Entry 33, Memotandum Opinion and Recommendation, April
20'\5, Webstet, J..)2
II.
DISCUSSION
Defendant McGeough moves to dismiss the complaint under Fedetal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(bX1), 12þ)Q), 12þ)(4),12(bX5), and 1,2þ)(6). (Docket Entry 13.)
' The Court also notes that Plaintiff filed yet another case against only Defendant Gary Scales
based on the same basic facts undetlyrng the two othet cases. J¿¿ lYaren u. Scales, Case No. 1:13-cv1146 (\4.D.N.C., filed Dec 23,201,3). By Order filed April 21.,201.5, this action was dismissed ¡ua
sþonfe without prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to seÍve Defendant Scales within 120 days of
filing her complaint. (1/., Docket Entry 7.)
-l
A. Plaintiff has Not Responded to the Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff has not fìled a response to Defendant's motion to dismiss and thetefote the
motion should be gtanted pursuant to this Coutt's local
des.
"The tespondent, if opposing
a motion, shall fìle a response, including bdef, within 21 days aftet setvice
M.D.N.C. R. 7.3(Ð.
de,
"If
a tespondent fails
of the motion."
to file a response within the time requited by this
the motion will be consideted and decided as an uncontested motion, and otdinarily
will be gtanted without futthet notice." M.D.N.C. R. 7.3(k);
!ee, e.g., Simþson u. Hassea,
No
1:08CV455, 201,4 WL 3547023, at x1-2 (À4.D.N.C. July 16, 2014) (tecommending dismissal
fot failure to tespond to a motion to dismiss), adoþted
(Iilley,
J.).
b1 Orde4
Mat. L8, 2015, ECF No.72
Defendant's motion to dismiss was filed on Septeml:er 12, 201,4. To date,
Plaintiff has not fìled a response. Plaintiffs pro
Simpson, 201,4
\Xil, 3547023 at
x1,
se
status does not excuse her inaction.
See
n. 4. Therefote, pursuant to the rules of this Coutt, the
motion to dismiss should be gtanted as uncontested.
If
the motion v/ere not tesolved by virtue of this Coutt's local tules, the undetsigned
would still tecommend that the motion be gtanted undet Federal Rules of Civil Ptocedute
12(b)(6)
for failute to state a claim, and 1,2þ)(1) for lack of subject matter juisdiction
pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman docttine.3
J¿¿
Memotandum Opinion and Recommendation
' Plainuff has also failed to prosecute the matter as to Defendant Scales. Defendant Scales has not
been ptopedy served in this matter. (Jee Retutn of Sewice Unexecuted, Docket Enuy 18.) A
plaintiff is required to serve a defendant within 1,20 days after a complaint is filed with the court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The complaint in thts action was filed on December 23,2013. (Compl. at 1,
Docket F,nltry 2). Service was not attempted until Aug. 19,201.4,249 days after the complatnt was
f:ded. (SeeReturnofServiceUnexecutedatl,DocketEntrylS.) Therefore,Plaintrfffailedtoserve
Defendant Scales within the time allotted by the Fedetal Rules of Civil Procedure, warranting
dismrssal of this action as to Defendant Scales.
4
of United States Magisttate Judge,
Il/arren u. Bray
No.
L:13CV1,1,44 (I\4.D.N.C.
Âpril 16,
201,5).
B. This Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction to Adjudicate PlaintifPs Claims
This Court does not have subject matter judsdiction to adjudicate any part of
PlaintifPs claim by virtue of what has become known as the Rooker-Feldnaa doctrine. Di¡trict
of Colambia Coart of Appeal: u. Feldmøn,460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker u. Fidelìt1
u.s.413
TrnÍ
Co., 263
(1e23).
Subject m^tter judsdiction is both a Constitutional and statutory tequirement which
testricts federal judicial power to a limited set of cases and controversies. Thus, "no action
of the parties can confet subject-mattet jurisdiction upon a federal court." Ins. Corþ. of Ireland
u. Compagnie
des
Baaxites de Gainee,456 U.S. 694,702
(1982). "fQ]uestions of subject-mattet
jutisdiction may be raised at any point dudng the ptoceedings and may . . . be ratse ¡ua
by the court."
Bric,ëwood ContracÍors, Inc. u. Datanet
sþonte
Eogb lnc.,369 F.3d 385, 390 (4th Cit.
2004) (citing Bender u. Il/illiansþort Area Sch. Dist.,475 U.S. 534, 541. (1986).
The
Roo,ëer-Feldman
doctine applies whete a fedetal litìgant seeks to review ot
overturn a state court otder in federal disttict court. Exxon Mobil CoQ. u. Saødi
Ba.ric Inds.
CorP.,544 U.S. 280,281, (2005). "LJndet theRoo/eer-Feldman docttine, lowet fedetal courts
genetally do not have jutisdiction
to review state-court
decisions; r^thet, jurisdiction to
review such decisions lies exclusively with supetior state courts and, ultimately, the United
States Supteme
Fe/clman
Court."
Pþler u. Moore, 129 F.3d 728,731, (4th Cir. 1,997). The
Roo,ëer-
doctrine prevents a federal court ftom detetmining that a state court judgment was
ettoneousl;' enteted
ot taking action that would rendet a state coutt judgment
5
ineffectual.
Jordbal a. I)emoratìce Parfit of
Va.,
1.22
F.3d 1.92,202 (4th Cit. 1997) (citing Ern.st u. Child and
Yoath Seru., 108 F'.3d 486, 491, (3d Cir. 1997)). The doctrine bars federal coutts from
addte ssing issues
court."
that are "'inextricably intettrvined' with the issues that were befote the state
If,/ashington u. lYilmore, 407
tr3d 274,279 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Di.rt. of Colømbia
Coaø of AppeaA' u. Feldman, 460 U.S.
462,486 (1983)). An issue is "inextticably intettwined"
with those before the state court if "success on the fedetal claim depends upon a
detetmination that the state coutt wtongly decided the issues before
it."
Pþler, 129 tr.3d at
731 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The Rooker-Feldrnan doctrine is à
"n
rrow doctrine." I-ance u. Dennù, 546 U.S. 459,
þer cudam). In Exxon, the Supreme Court limited the doctrine "to
cases
of the
kind ftom which the docttine acquired its name: cases btought by state-court
losets
464 Q006)
complaining of injudes caused by state-coutt judgments tendered befote the fedetal district
court proceedings commenced and inviting distict court review and tejection
of
those
judgments." Exxon Mobil CorP.,544 U.S. at 284. The telief sought in federal court must
"teverse or modi$r the state coutt decree" for the doctrine to apply. Adkin¡ u, Rømsrtld,464
tr.3d 456,464 (4th Clt. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, "Exxzn
tequites us to examine whethet the state-court loset who files suit
seeks tedress
for an injury caused by the state-court decision itself.
is not challenging the state-coutt decision, the
Rooker-Feldrnan
Dauani a. Va. Dtþ't. of Transp.,434F.3d712,718 (4th
in federal district court
If
fthe state-court loser]
doctine does not apply."
Cit. 2006) (footnote omitted).
This Coutt m^y raise issues of subject-matter jutiscliction sua tþonte.
Contractors, Inc., 369
See Brickwood
F.3d at 390. While it is difficult to discern the exact nâture of Plaintifls
6
claims against Defendants,
it
appears that they ate based on an alleged conspiracy among
Defendant Btay, who ptesided
in the state court ptoceeding, Defendant Scales, and
Defendant McGeough, who reptesented Mt. Scales, to tetminate PlaintifFs patental rights.
In one of the attachments to the complaint, Plaintiff appears to take issue with the fìnding of
the state court to remove her child from her home, and states that she "want[s] all paties
sued for kidnapping and participating in the abduction of my son al-ienating hirn ftom me
my daughter." (I)ocket Entry 2-3
at2.) In
&
another attachment, she asserts that "[t]he father
must apply for custody in our home statea that has personal jurisdiction ovet the tr.vo of us
þinot
child's name] and Tnika Watren," (l)ocket Entry 2-4 at 1.)
Plaintiff cleady "seeks tedtess for an injuty caused by
[u.l state-court
decision."
.1ee
Dauani,434 r-.3d at71.9. Moreover, Plaintiff specifically seeks to recover damages ftom
f)efendants tesulting from the tetmination of parental dghts by the state court. (Compl. at
2-4,DocketEntty 2.) Such teLief is "inextticably intettwined" with the state court decision,
in that it would require this Cout to reconsidet pdor
whethet they wete ptopetll' decided.
See Dlte u.
state coutt decisions
I[atfield, No. Civ.1:03CV01077,2004
3266029, at *5 (IVI.D.N.C. Aug.26,2004). ¡\s in D1e, a ruling
necessarily tequire this coutt
to detetmine
W
in favot of Plaintjff "would
to fìnd that the Notth Catolina state courts eithet wtongfully
decided certain issues befote them or imptopetly entered otders and judgments against
Plaintiff
[] in civil .
. matters related to Plaintiffs domestjc dispute." hL "Þurthermot:e,
federal courts typically avoid decisions in mattets related to divotce, child support and child
custody because these mattets traditionally fall within the jurisdiction of state courts." Id.
o
Pluintiffis
a resident
of Georgia
1
Because PlaintifPs claims are inextricably intettwined with the decision
of the Noth
Carol-ina state court related to Plaintiffs domestic dispute with Defendant Scales, this court
lacks subject matter jutisdiction
Ro o ke
to adjudic^te
^ny
of Plaintiffs federal claims under
the
r-F /d m a n do cttine.s
e
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Coutt finds that it lacks jutisdiction to adjudicate
this mattet. Âccotdingly, the undetsigned RECOMMENDS that Defendant's motion to
dismiss
pocket E.rttf 13) be GRANTED. Additionally, because this Court lacks subject-
matter jurisdiction
to adjudic^te
any
of Plaintiffs claims, the Coutt recommends that
the
action be dismissed in its entitety.
S
Joe. L.
nited States Magistrate Judge
Durham, Noth Catolina
Âpdt
, zots
lt
u
V/hile not necessary to the recommendation of dismissal, the Court notes as well Defendant's
arguments regarding Plaintiff s fatfute to effect proper serwice of the summons and complaint in this
matter. (Jee Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. to Dismiss at 9 - 12, Docket Etrtty 1,4, riting Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(bX1), 12þ)(4) and 12þ)(5)). These arguments have merit and on theit own would be grounds
for dismissal.
8
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?