Opinion
C/A No. 4:08-639-RBH-TER.
July 29, 2008
Report and Recommendation
This is a civil action filed pro se. Plaintiff has requested to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. (Entry 13).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and D.S.C. Civ. R. 73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C., this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in such pro se cases and submit findings and recommendations to the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); In Re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1997) ( pro se pleadings by non-prisoners should also be screened).
In the Complaint and Amended Complaint filed in this case, Plaintiff complains about the results of a domestic relations case in Darlington County. She alleges that she lost important financial and child visitation benefits because her former spouse, numerous attorneys, and others conspired against her. She asks this Court to change the result of that state court case and "restore to plaintiff today" all "medical benefits, monetary benefits child custody." (Amended Complaint 5).
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se Complaint filed by Plaintiff in this case. The review was conducted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (as amended), and other provisions in the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The review has been conducted in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983); Boyce v. Alizaduh, 595 F.2d 948 (4th Cir. 1979).
This Court is required to construe pro se complaints liberally. Such pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys, Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), and a federal district court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, ___ U.S. _, 127 S. Ct. 2197 (2007); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972). When a federal court is evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. Fine v. City of New York, 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). The requirement of liberal construction, however, does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Department of Social Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990). Even under this less stringent standard, the Complaint filed in this case is subject to summary dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the Plaintiff could prevail, it should do so, but a district court may not rewrite a petition to include claims that were never presented, Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 1999), or construct Plaintiff's legal arguments for him, Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1993), or "conjure up questions never squarely presented" to the court, Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
Initially, since it is clear that Plaintiff is complaining of injuries allegedly caused to her by the results of a domestic relations case in state court and that she is, in essence, asking this Court to overturn the state court rulings, this case is subject to summary dismissal because, under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider them. The proceedings and rulings made in the Darlington County Family Court cannot be reviewed or set aside by the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina in this case. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476-82 (1983) (a federal district court lacks authority to review final determinations of state or local courts because such review can only be conducted by the Supreme Court of the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1257.). See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). This prohibition on review of state court orders by federal district courts is commonly referred to as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or the Feldman-Rooker doctrine. See, e.g., Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005); Davani v. Va. Dep't of Transport., 434 F.3d 712 (4th Cir. 2006); Ivy Club v. Edwards, 943 F.2d 270, 284 (3d Cir. 1991). Because the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine is jurisdictional it may be raised by the Court sua sponte. American Reliable Ins. Co. v. Stillwell, 336 F.3d 311, 316 (4th Cir. 2003). According to the Fourth Circuit, "the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies . . . when the loser in state court files suit in federal district court seeking redress for an injury allegedly caused by the state court's decision itself." Davani, 434 F.3d at 713.
Appeals of orders issued by lower state courts must go to a higher state court. Secondly, the Congress, for more than two hundred years, has provided that only the Supreme Court of the United States may review a decision of a state's highest court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257 (since 1988, such Supreme Court review is discretionary by way of a writ of certiorari and is not an appeal of right); see Ernst v. Child Youth Servs., 108 F.3d 486, 491 (3d Cir. 1997). In civil, criminal, and other cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has reviewed decisions of the Supreme Court of South Carolina that were properly brought before it under 28 U.S.C. § 1257 or that statute's predecessors. E.g., Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1991) (an example of a South Carolina Supreme Court case that was reviewed by the United States Supreme Court).
Plaintiff's submission of the Complaint in this case, asking this Court to change the results of the Darlington County Family Court case because she claims that Defendants somehow conspired against her clearly shows that she is attempting to have this Court review the proceedings that took place before that state court. See Anderson v. Colorado, 793 F.2d 262, 263 (10th Cir. 1986) ("[I]t is well settled that federal district courts are without authority to review state court judgments where the relief sought is in the nature of appellate review."); see also Hagerty v. Succession of Clement, 749 F.2d 217, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1984) (collecting cases). Plaintiff is clearly claiming that she has been injured by the state court's rulings, see Willner v. Frey, No. 06-1432, 2007 WL 222778 (4th Cir. August 3, 2007); cf. Ruttenberg v. Jones, 2008 WL 2436157 (4th Cir. June 17, 2008) (reversing a Rooker/Feldman dismissal), and to rule in favor of Plaintiff on her claims would, necessarily, require this Court to overrule (or otherwise find invalid) various orders and rulings made in the Darlington County Family Court. Such a result is prohibited under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. Davani, 434 F.3d at 719-20; see Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. at 293-94; Jordahl v. Democratic Party of Va., 122 F.3d at 201.
Furthermore, even if the Rooker/Feldman Doctrine were not applicable to this case, Plaintiff's Complaint and Amended Complaint would still be subject to summary dismissal for lack of federal question or diversity jurisdiction. In order for this Court to hear and decide a case, the Court must, first, have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation. It is well settled that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-37 (1992); Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986), which is not to be expanded by judicial decree, American Fire Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6 (1951). It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, Turner v. Bank of N. Am., 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 8, 11 (1799), and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction, McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182-83 (1936). The two most commonly recognized and utilized bases for federal court jurisdiction are (1) "federal question," 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) "diversity of citizenship." 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The allegations contained in the Complaint and Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff in this case do not fall within the scope of either form of this Court's limited jurisdiction, and there is no other possible basis for federal jurisdiction evident.
First, there is clearly no basis for a finding of diversity jurisdiction over this case. The diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), requires complete diversity of parties and an amount in controversy in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00):
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between —
(1) citizens of different States[.]28 U.S.C. § 1332 (emphasis added). Complete diversity of parties in a case means that no party on one side may be a citizen of the same state as any party on the other side. Owen Equip. Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 372-74 nn. 13-16 (1978). This Court has no diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 over this case because according to the information provided by Plaintiff in her service documents and pleadings, Plaintiff and all Defendants are residents of South Carolina. Although it is not clear whether Plaintiff's allegations would be sufficient to support a finding that the $75,000 jurisdictional amount would be in controversy in this case, this does not matter in this case because, in absence of diversity of citizenship, the amount in controversy is irrelevant.
Second, it is clear that the essential allegations contained in the Complaint and Amended Complaint are insufficient to show that the case is one "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. That is, the Complaint and Amended Complaint do not state a claim cognizable under this Court's "federal question" jurisdiction. Plaintiff's Complaint and Amended Complaint involve a more-or-less-routine domestic relations dispute. Generally, domestic relations issues are handled in state courts, such as the Darlington County Family Court, and cannot be heard in federal courts unless diversity of citizenship is present. See, e.g., Marquez v. Caudill, 656 S.E. 2d 737 (S.C. 2008); Abate v. Abate, 660 S.E. 2d 515 (S.C.Ct.App. 2008).
Plaintiff's allegations do not contain any reference to alleged violations of any federal statute or constitutional provision by Defendants, nor is any type of federal question jurisdiction otherwise evident from the faces of the Complaint and Amended Complaint. Even if Plaintiff had made assertions that her federal rights were violated by Defendants, this Court would not be bound by such allegations and would be entitled to disregard them if the facts did not support Plaintiff's contentions. When considering the issue of whether a case is one "arising under the Constitution . . ." or, in other words, whether "federal question" jurisdiction is present, a federal court is not bound by the parties' characterization of a case. District courts are authorized to disregard such characterizations to avoid "unjust manipulation or avoidance of its jurisdiction." Lyon v. Centimark Corp., 805 F. Supp. 333, 334-35 (E.D. N.C. 1992); see Louisville Nashville R.R. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908); cf. Gully v. First Nat'l Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 109 (1936) ("Not every question of federal law emerging in a suit is proof that a federal law is the basis of the suit."); Bonner v. Circuit Ct. of St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331, 1336 (8th Cir. 1975) (federal constitutional claims are cognizable in both state courts and in federal courts: "Congress and the federal courts have consistently recognized that federal courts should permit state courts to try state cases, and that, where constitutional issues arise, state court judges are fully competent to handle them subject to Supreme Court review.").
Additionally, purely private conduct such as that alleged in this case, no matter how wrongful, injurious, fraudulent, or discriminatory, is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or under the Fourteenth Amendment, the two most common provisions under which persons come into federal court to claim that others have violated their constitutional rights. See Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936 (1982); Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth., 365 U.S. 715, 721 (1961). Plaintiff does not cite to either 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or the Fourteenth Amendment in his Complaint, nor, as previously stated, does she claim that the Defendants violated her constitutional rights.
Even if Plaintiff had included allegations of constitutional violations by Defendants, they would not establish "federal question" jurisdiction over this case because there are no additional allegations of "state action" by Defendants in connection with their participation in the Darlington County Family Court case. In order to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the defendant(s) deprived him or her of a federal right, and (2) did so under color of state law. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980); see Hall v. Quillen, 631 F.2d 1154, 1155-56 (4th Cir. 1980). Because the United States Constitution regulates only the Government, not private parties, a litigant claiming that his constitutional rights have been violated must first establish that the challenged conduct constitutes "state action." See, e.g., Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1002 (1982). To qualify as state action, the conduct in question "must be caused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of conduct imposed by the State or by a person for whom the State is responsible," and "the party charged with the [conduct] must be a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor." Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. at 937; see U. S. v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen Helpers of Am., AFL-CIO, 941 F.2d 1292 (2d Cir. 1991). For example, an attorney, whether retained, court-appointed, or a public defender, does not act under color of state law, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite for any civil action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Deas v. Potts, 547 F.2d 800 (4th Cir. 1976) (private attorney); Hall v. Quillen, 631 F.2d 1154, 1155-56 (4th Cir. 1980) (court-appointed attorney); Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-24 (1981) (public defender); see also Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936 (1982) ("Careful adherence to the 'state action' requirement . . . also avoids imposing on the State, its agencies or officials, responsibility for conduct for which they cannot fairly be blamed.").
Many of the Defendants appear to be attorneys who somehow participated in the Darlington County Family Court case.
As noted, there are no allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint or Amended Complaint which attribute any of Defendants' actions to state action; therefore, even if the Complaint could be liberally construed to "imply" an allegation of constitutional rights violations by the private Defendants, such implied interpretation would not establish "federal question" jurisdiction in this case. In the absence of either diversity or federal question jurisdiction over the parties' dispute, this case should be summarily dismissed without issuance of process for Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, it is recommended that the District Court dismiss the Complaint in this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). Plaintiff's attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Court Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. In the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court judge need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must "only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Diamond v. Colonial Life Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005).Specific written objections must be filed within ten (10) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The time calculation of this ten-day period excludes weekends and holidays and provides for an additional three (3) days for filing by mail. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a) (e). Filing by mail pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Larry W. Propes, Clerk
United States District Court
P.O. Box 2317
Florence, South Carolina 29503Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); U. S. v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985).