United States of America v. Carter et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 09/18/2017. (tjoh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Civil Action No. 3:16cv674
LEWIS F. CARTER, et al.
This matter comes before the Court on the Defendants Lewis F. Carter ("Carter"), Mary
Carter ("Mary"), and Bobby Carter's ("Bobby") (collectively, "the Carters"), all proceeding pro
se,^ multiple pending motions to dismiss purportedly brought under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(l),^ 12(b)(2),^ 12(b)(6),'^ and 12(h)(3)^ (collectively, the "Motions to Dismiss"),
(ECF Nos. 7, 8, 9, 18); the Carters' Motion to "Take Judicial Notice of Law" (the "Judicial
Notice Motion"), (ECF No. 17); the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No.
21); the Carters' "Demand for Due Process Hearing" (the "Due Process Demand"), (ECF No.
' "District courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally." Blankenship v. Am.
Fed. Gov't Empls., No. 3:15cv294, 2016 WL 1276425, at *2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 30, 2016) (citing
Bracey v. Buchanan^ 55 F. Supp. 2d 416, 421 (E.D. Va. 1999)).
^"[A] party may assert the following defense[ ] by motion: (1) lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
^"[A] party may assert the following defenses by motion:,.. lack ofpersonal
jurisdiction ...Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
^Rule 12(b)(6) provides that a party may move to dismiss a complaint for "failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
^Rule 12(h)(3) states that "[i]fthe court determines at any time that it lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
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?