Eveland v. Maryland Ex Rel. Frosh
691 F. App'x 111
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Sherry Ray Eveland, Jody Eveland Sr., Jody Eveland Jr.) sued the State of Maryland, multiple law firms, an alleged judge, and an attorney seeking damages and injunctive relief related to an ongoing Maryland probate matter.
- The district court initially dismissed the complaint without prejudice because the claims and jurisdictional basis were unclear and because the court concluded Younger abstention barred interference with state probate proceedings.
- This Court dismissed an interlocutory appeal and remanded under Goode; on remand Eveland filed a "Motion and Response" treated as an amended complaint.
- The district court again dismissed, finding Younger abstention applicable (state probate proceeding ongoing and implicating vital state interests) and that the amended filing still failed to satisfy Rule 8 notice pleading requirements.
- Eveland appealed pro se but did not challenge the district court’s reasoning in her informal brief; the panel granted in forma pauperis and affirmed the dismissal and denied motions to intervene and to correct the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court can adjudicate claims tied to ongoing state probate proceedings | Eveland sought federal relief against state/probate actors and related parties (argued federal forum appropriate) | Defendants asserted federal court must abstain under Younger because probate proceeding is ongoing and implicates vital state interests | Court held Younger abstention bars federal adjudication and affirmed dismissal |
| Whether amended complaint satisfied Rule 8 pleading requirements | Eveland contended her amended filing cured defects and stated claims | Defendants argued the filing remained unintelligible and failed to give fair notice | Court held amended complaint still failed to meet Rule 8; dismissal proper |
| Whether appellate review preserved issues | Eveland raised grounds by appeal generally | Defendants noted Eveland’s informal brief did not contest district court's reasoning | Court held Eveland forfeited appellate review by not challenging basis for dismissal in brief |
| Whether third party may intervene or correct record (McDermott) | McDermott sought to intervene or file amicus and to correct record | Defendants opposed intervention and contested record corrections | Court denied motions to intervene and to correct the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (abstention doctrine precluding federal interference with ongoing state proceedings)
- Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2015) (procedural guidance on interlocutory appeals and remand)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (pleading must give defendants fair notice of claim and grounds)
- Laurel Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Wilson, 519 F.3d 156 (4th Cir. 2008) (describing Younger abstention elements)
- Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423 (4th Cir. 2004) (appellate forfeiture when issues not raised in brief)