Draper v. Charlottesville General District Court, 3:18-cv-00022

Plaintiff Cedrick Euron Draper, proceeding pro se, filed suit naming the Charlottesville General District Court as defendant and sought damages related to state-court proceedings and service/address issues.
Draper alleged removal/transfer and problems with service at an address on Brook Road in Richmond; he sought $3,500 or nominal relief.
Draper moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; the court granted that motion.
The complaint did not identify any federal statute or federal cause of action, nor attempt to invoke diversity jurisdiction.
The District Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and evaluated subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, citing the Rooker–Feldman doctrine where applicable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject‑matter jurisdiction	Draper sought federal review/relief from actions relating to state-court cases	Not specified in complaint	Dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (no federal question or diversity)
Applicability of Rooker–Feldman	Sought relief from or review of state‑court decisions	Not specified	Rooker–Feldman bars district‑court review of final state‑court judgments rendered before the federal suit
Failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)	Complaint alleges wrongful action but pleads no recognizable federal cause of action or sufficient facts	N/A	Dismissed for failing to plead plausible claim; complaint lacks factual and legal basis
Procedure re: removal/remand challenge	Complaint complains about removal/transfer from state court	Proper remedy is timely motion to remand in removed case	Court notes remand motion is the appropriate avenue; district court cannot grant the relief sought here

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts have only jurisdiction authorized by Constitution and statute)
Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (under the well‑pleaded complaint rule, federal‑question jurisdiction depends on plaintiff's claim)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (Rooker–Feldman doctrine prohibits federal district review of state‑court judgments)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)
De'Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630 (standard for dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) mirrors Rule 12(b)(6))
Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648 (district court has duty to screen IFP filings)
Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet Eng'g, Inc., 369 F.3d 385 (subject‑matter jurisdiction can be raised sua sponte)
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (origin of Rooker–Feldman)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (Rooker–Feldman further developed)