WARREN v. MCGEOUGH et al, No. 1:2013cv01145 - Document 21 (M.D.N.C. 2015)
Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
WARREN v. MCGEOUGH et al Doc. 21 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.) ccording 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 Dockets.Justia.com appears undisputed that Defendant McGeough,l ^n ^ttotney atLegal id 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. pril 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 nture 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. ccotdingly, 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 pdt , 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
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
