Terry v. Dewine
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174061
| D.D.C. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Lue Cindy Terry (pro se) sued Ohio Attorney General Michael DeWine and three Franklin County, Ohio officials challenging a state-court foreclosure on her property and seeking money damages and injunctive relief.
- The foreclosure decree in Franklin County Case No. 13-CV-006485 was entered on June 9, 2014; this federal complaint was filed June 25, 2014.
- Franklin County defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rooker–Feldman; DeWine did not appear.
- Court questioned jurisdiction over claims against DeWine, ordered Plaintiff to show cause, and raised service-of-process and Eleventh Amendment concerns.
- Court found (1) no personal jurisdiction over the Franklin County defendants, (2) Rooker–Feldman bars the federal suit because it is a collateral attack on a state-court final judgment, (3) sovereign immunity bars money damages against DeWine in his official capacity, and (4) service on DeWine in his individual capacity was insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Franklin County defendants | Terry alleges county officials responsible for foreclosure; implies venue in D.C. is proper | Franklin County: no contacts with D.C.; defendants are Ohio officials | Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction — no general or specific contacts with D.C. |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction under Rooker–Feldman | Terry seeks federal relief overturning/voiding Ohio foreclosure judgment | Defs: federal court cannot review final state-court judgments | Dismissed under Rooker–Feldman — Terry was a state‑court party, claims are inextricably intertwined, and suit filed after state judgment |
| Money damages against DeWine in official capacity | Plaintiff seeks monetary relief and injunctive relief implicating Attorney General | State sovereign immunity: Ohio has not waived Eleventh Amendment immunity | Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction — Eleventh Amendment bars money damages against DeWine in official capacity |
| Personal-capacity claims against DeWine (service) | Plaintiff contends service by certified mail to AG’s office sufficed for individual suit | Court: service must comply with Rule 4 and state law requirements; no proof recipient was authorized agent for individual service | Dismissed for insufficient service of process under Rule 12(b)(5) (no proper service on DeWine individually) |
| Motions for default judgment | Terry moved for immediate default judgment after filing; seeks large monetary award | Defs responded and moved to dismiss; court must have jurisdiction before entering default | Denied — court lacks personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, so default judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts/due process standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (Rooker–Feldman doctrine principles)
- Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (scope and limits of Rooker–Feldman)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (parallel vs. nonparallel state and federal suits under Rooker–Feldman)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity principles)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (purposeful availment analysis for jurisdiction)