Alston v. Dore et al, No. 8:2015cv02635 - Document 3 (D. Md. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 10/6/2015. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 10/7/15)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Alston v. Dore et al Doc. 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Solltllem Dh';s;oll c::J ....; * I RONNIE LEE ALSTON, Plaintiff, " '-'fT1 c);o i c:J ;:;; -'u> ;0' <= :Po, I * ...• :u~ -c: <fl. ... -0 l..... 1J UJ1'1 CaseNo.: G.JH-15;263~ ;0" _ ....;0 ,c oF. .. -rr'! ' * THOMAS 1'. DORE and CHARLES HIRSCH, '-'u>" 0'-'..,,::or :t0fTI »-10 I . g~ a- * v. ,,- e=:> n Cl -< :Po::O ....• * ::; * r: i5 * * * Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM OPINION Ronnie Lee Alston. a self-represented plaintiff: filed this Complaint on September 4. 2015. accompanied by a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. He will be granted leave to proceed in !iJrma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.c. * 1915(a)( I) because his financial aflidavit indicates that his only source of income is disability payments. For the reasons that liJllow. the Complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiff seeks to set aside a forcclosure proceeding against his home on the basis that service was not properly effected and false evidence was provided to the state court in the context of that procecding.lle statcs that thc foreclosure procceding took place in20l3 while he was in the process of modi(ying or re-financing the loan pursuant to the Homeowners Affordability and Refinancing Plan. Executive Ordcr. ECF No. I at 2. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants accept cd payment in February 2013 and had attorneys initiate fiJreciosure two months later. Id. at I. He claims the proccedings violated his right to due process and that Defendants violated the Fair I-lousing Aet./d. at 2. Plaintiffand both Defendants namcd residc in Dockets.Justia.com Maryland. Under the "well-pleaded complaint"" rule, see Flying Pigs. LLC 1'. RRA.! J-)-anchisin)!,. LLC, 757 F.3d 177. 181 (4th Cir. 2014). the facts showing the existence of subject matter jurisdiction "must be aflinnatively 191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir. 1999)."A limited jurisdiction Pinkley. Inc. alleged in the complaint:' court is to presume. unless and until jurisdiction therefore. P. Cily on'/'ederick. that a case lies outside its Uniled Slales \'. has been shown to be proper:' Poole. 531 F.3d 263. 274 (4th Cir. 2008). Moreover. the "burden of establishing jurisdiction is on ... (20 I 0): lvlcBlImey Rohh E\"IIns & Assocs .. LLC \'. Holihaugh. the party asserting jurisdiction:' 609 F.3d 359. 362 (4th Cir. 2010); accord lIertz 1'. Friend. 599 U.S. 77. 95.130 Cliceinelli. 616 F.3d 393.408 S. Ct. 1181 (4th Cir. 20 I 0). Foreclosurc 1'. under state law do not give rise to federal question actions brought subjcct-mattcr jurisdiction. Moah Tiara Cherokee Kifllll'ah Nalion Chi4 No. 3:08-cv-00293-FDW. Sept. 3. 2008) (stating that nothing in the "simple real property the presence of a federal question"). suggests not state a claim that may be brought under this Court's Under 28 U.S.c. * between citizens of different citizenship foreclosure * of every defendant:' exclusive over all civil or interest and costs. and is 1332(a) (2012). The statute "requires among parties. meaning that the citizenship does federal question jurisdiction. exceeds $75.000. states. 28 U.S.c. action of Thus. the instant Complaint 1332(a). a federal district court has original jurisdiction actions where the amount in controversy diversity See MeNeely,'. 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81471. at *1-2 (W.D.N.C. ... subject matter complete of every plaintiff must be diflercnt fi'OIll the Cenl. W Va. Energy Co.. Inc. ". Mounlain Slale Carhon. LLC 636 F .3d 101. I 03 (4th Cir. 20 I I). The citizenship of the parties in this case are not diverse. therefore under this Court's the instant action may not be maintained 2 divcrsity jurisdiction. Even if the above-noted jurisdictional deficiencies were removed. the matter assel1ed may not be addressed by this Court as it seeks what is in essence appellate review of a final decision issued by a state coul1. Under the Rooker-Feldmalll abstention doctrine. "a 'party losing in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court. ... Am. ReliaMe IllS. v. Slilhrel/. 336 F.3d 311. 316 (4th Cir. 2003).2 "[T)he Rooker-Feldmall doctrine ... by elevating substance over 1()fIll. preservcs the independence of state courts as well as congressional intent that an appeal from a state court decision must proceed through that state' s system of appellate review rather than inferior federal courts:' Id. at 391. Simply put. if Plaintitr s state law claim is harred by res.i udicata and collateral estoppel in the Maryland state courts, the claim is also barred in this Court. Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. ~1915(e)(2). this Court is authorized to sua sponte dismiss complaints which fail to state a claim. 28 U.S.c. ~1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). By separate Order which follows. the Complaint shall be dismissed. Dated: October ~ 2015 GEORGE.I. HAZEL United States District .Iudge I D. C CA. v. Feldman. 460 U.S. 462. 482 ( 1983): Raaker v. Fidelity Trllst Ca .. 263 lJ .S. 413. 416 ( 1923). 2 This Court may raise the Rooka-Feldman n.5 (41h Cir.1997). doctrine sua sponte. Jordahl , ., \0. Democratic farty. 122 F.3d 192. 197
]]>
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.
