Ornes v. Mason et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 9/13/17. (sas)

ClERK'S OFFICE U.S. DIST. COURT

AT ROANOKE, VA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERNDISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION

ELISHA ORNES,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEREMY MASON, MARLENA
SEALE, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF CHILD SUPPORT, a Virginia
corporation, DOES 1 TO 100, and
DENNIS NAGEL,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

FILED

Civil Action No. 7: 17CV00393
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Hon. Glen E. Conrad
United States District Judge

Plaintiff Elisha Omes, proceeding pro se, brings this action against defendants Jeremy
Mason, Marlena Seale, the Virginia Department of Child Support ("VDCS"), Does 1 to 100, and
Dennis Nagel, seeking relief related to a dispute over child support. This matter is currently
before the court on the plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Although the
court grants the motion, for the following reasons, the court concludes that the complaint must be
dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
Background
On August 18, 2017, Omes commenced this action by filing two documents, which the
court construed as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint. In the
complaint, Omes identifies herself as a prosecutor and sets forth 16 causes of action against
various defendants related to her dispute with Mason regarding the paternity and financial
support of her child. The causes of action include demands for an audit of Mason's financial

records and a drug test of Mason, a claim for breach of a court-ordered child support contract,
and purported criminal charges against Mason, including child endangerment, trespass,
harassment, and identity theft and fraud.

Ornes also requests a permanent protective and

restraining order and a cease and desist order against Mason. Finally, Ornes requests compliance
with the Foreign Agents Registration Act if Mason intends to have an attorney respond to her
complaint. The complaint does not specify which, if any, of the causes of action are alleged
against Seale, the VDCS, Does 1 to 100, or Nagel. Ornes seeks monetary damages, court costs,
and a declaratory judgment increasing the amount of child support and requiring payment of past
due child support and medical costs.
Ornes has also filed a document titled, "Writ of Error Qua Corum Nobis Residant" and a
"Notice to Court and All Other Officers."

In these filings, Ornes claims that the Clerk

improperly docketed her first filing as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis as
opposed to an order granting her leave to proceed in forma pauperis as she had requested. She
also requests a "Certified Copy of Oath and Bond from Judge Glen E. Conrad." Docket No. 6.
Standards of Review

Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court "must
dismiss" an action "[i]fthe court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). "[Q]uestions ofsubject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any point
during the proceedings and may (or, more precisely, must) be raised sua sponte by the court."
Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet Eng'g, Inc., 369 F.3d 385, 390 (4th Cir. 2004).
Additionally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), which governs in forma pauperis proceedings,
the court has "a duty to screen initial filings." Eriline Co. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 656-57 (4th
Cir. 2006).

The court must dismiss a case "at any time" if the court determines that the

2

complaint "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
In reviewing a complaint for dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the court applies the same
standard used to review a motion for dismissal under Rule 12(b)( 6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. De'Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003).

Although a pro se

plaintiffs pleadings are liberally construed, the complaint must contain sufficient factual
allegations "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level" and to "state a claim to relief
,that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007).
Discussion

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and "possess only that power authorized by
Constitution and statute." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994). Generally, federal district courts are authorized to hear cases arising out of federal law
or involving diverse parties and a specified amount in controversy. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,1332.
Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, "a suit arises under federal law only when the plaintiffs
statement ofhis own cause of action shows that it is based upon federal law." Vaden v. Discover
Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Having reviewed the complaint, the court is constrained to conclude that it must be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Omes has failed to identify any violation of
federal law which might support the exercise of federal question jurisdiction under § 1331.
Although Omes refers to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, she "ha[s] not asserted any
coherent federal claim, much less affirmatively alleged one." Taylor v. Bank of Am., No.
7:12CV00010, 2012 WL 871049, at *2 (W.D. Va. Mar. 14, 2012). Because the complaint "on
its face makes no recognizable e±Iort to assert a federal right to relief' under the act or otherwise,
the complaint does not invoke federal question jurisdiction. Id.; see Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60. Nor

3

has Omes demonstrated that complete diversity of citizenship exists between the parties as
required by § 1332. To the contrary, the complaint indicates that the plaintiff, and at the very
least, the VDCS, are residents of Virginia. Thus, both federal question and diversity jurisdiction
are lacking.
Moreover, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, 1 federal district courts do not have
subject matter jurisdiction to hear "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries
caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and
inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi
Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Accordingly, to the extent Omes seeks review of,
or relief from, a child support order, her complaint is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(h)(3).
Omes' complaint is also subject to dismissal under§ 1915(e)(2). Liberally construing the
complaint, it fails to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief against any
defendant. The complaint does not identify any cause of action under which Omes seeks relief
against four ofthe defendants, Seale, the VDCS, Does 1 to 100, and Nagel. The complaint also
does not provide any legal authority entitling her to relief. As described above, the complaint
refers to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, but does not set forth the legal basis for a claim
under that act. Finally, Omes purports to operate as a prosecutor bringing criminal charges, but
does not have the authority of a prosecutor. Nor do_es she cite the criminal statutes upon which
she relies to demonstrate that any of those statutes provide a private right of action. See Doe v.
Broderick, 225 F.3d 440, 447-48 (4th Cir. 2000) ("The Supreme Court historically has been loath
to infer a private right of action from 'a bare criminal statute."') (quoting Cortv. Ash, 422 U.S.
66, 80 (1975)).

1 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is named after two Supreme Court cases, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413
(1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

4

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, the court grants the plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismisses the complaint without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) and 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk is directed to send certified copies of this memorandum
opinion and the accompanying order to the plaintiff.
DATED: This

l31A day of September, 2017.

United States District Judge

5