Rutherford Tate v. Mecklenburg Police Department et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying 6 letter-motion seeking reconsideration of the dismissal of Complaint. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 9/30/2017. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:17-cv-00452-RJC
CAROLYN A. RUTHERFORD TATE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MECKLENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT, )
RONALD L. TATE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s letter-motion seeking
reconsideration of the dismissal of her July 31, 2017 Complaint. (Doc. No. 6.) The Court
dismissed the pro se Complaint on the grounds that it was frivolous and failed to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). (Doc. No. 4).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a court to correct orders and provide relief
from judgment under certain circumstances, including:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence . . . ; (3) fraud[,] . . . misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing
party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or
applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies
relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). None of those circumstances apply here.
To the extent it is intelligible, Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to seek enforcement of one
or more domestic relations orders entered by an unidentified state court, reimbursement from her
ex-husband for certain injuries, reinstatement of parental rights, relief from harassment by her

1

ex-husband’s girlfriends, and a number of other nonsensical forms of relief. (Compl., Doc. No.
1). Plaintiff claims the following injuries: “Hearsay – missiles – brain damage, (illegible) of
operations, children brutalized, brain trauma inside of body [and] forced psycho medication,
mental cruelties, being (illegible) [and] exposed to family, inlaws [sic], relatives[,] friends, and
his various associations.” (Compl. 3). In seeking reconsideration of the Court’s frivolity review,
Plaintiff explains:
I requested your Honorable Decision for Federal Payment and Health Aid from my
ex-husband, that he is in contempt of Court Orders of 90 CVD 459. I also request
that the Orders be enforced with adequate Counsel and Representation for 1/2 the
mentioned Military Pension exact Amount as mentioned, Health Care for ruffles
and damages he has obtained through his evasive manipulations and actions with
unsavory and dubious persons by way of inadequate considerations and
circumstances from our Top Secret Clearance Orders of the United States
Government and U.S. Militarys [sic].
(Letter-motion 1, Doc. No. 6).
Many of the facts alleged in the Complaint hint, at a minimum, of delusion. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989). More importantly, however, Plaintiff has not alleged
facts which set forth a claim under federal law.
A federal district court has jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331. Plaintiff has not pled
facts indicating a violation of federal law or of the United States Constitution; nor has she pled
facts that would allow the Court to identify a federal law or constitutional right Plaintiff might be
attempting to invoke. Notably, although she names the “Mecklenburg Police Department” as a
defendant, Plaintiff does not plead any relevant facts related to that entity. Furthermore, she does
not allege that Defendant Ronald Tate, her ex-husband, was a state actor at any time relevant to
her Complaint. See e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In short, Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action under federal law. See Ashcroft v.
2

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Moreover,
Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to indicate that the Court has jurisdiction over this action.
Federal courts are “courts of limited jurisdiction.” Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v.
Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). They possess only the power authorized by Article III of the
United States Constitution and statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto. See Bender v.
Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541–42 (1986).
As noted, Plaintiff has not stated a cause of action arising under a federal law or the
federal Constitution. See § 1331. A federal district court also has original jurisdiction over a
case or controversy involving citizens of different states, if the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a)(1). Nothing in the Complaint indicates that diversity
jurisdiction exists here. In fact, Plaintiff provides North Carolina addresses for herself and both
Defendants. Consequently, she has failed to allege sufficient facts indicating the Court has
jurisdiction over this action.
In sum, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Additionally, the Court concludes that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the
above-captioned action.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s letter-motion seeking reconsideration
of the dismissal of her Complaint (Doc. No. 6) is DENIED.

Signed: September 30,
2017

3