Case Information
*1 CLERK'S OFFICE .U S . DIST. COUFF AT ROANOKE, VA ' FILED MAt 6 2218 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTIUCT COURT JU DLEY CLE FOR TH E W ESTERN D ISTRICT O F VIRG IN IA BK W CLE CHA RLOTTESV ILLE D IV ISION
CED RICK EU RON D RA PER,
Civil Action N o. 3:18CV00022 Plaintif:
M EM OR ANDUM OPINION Hon. Glen E. Conrad CHA RLO TTESV ILLE G EN ER AL
D ISTRICT CO URT,
D efendant.
Plaintiff Cedrick Euron Draper, proceeding pro K , filed this action on April 2, 2018, nnming the Charlottesville General District Court as the defendant. This m atter is currently before the court on the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed Lq forma pauperis. Although the coul't grants the m otion, for the reasons that follow, the court concludes that thb com plaint must ' ' . q be dismissed under Rule 12419(3) of the Fediral Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C.
j 1915(e)(2)(B).
B ackeround
The plaintiff's com plaint states as follow s:
Case N o.: GV18000089-00 AND GV 18000043-00 was dism issed and transferred to Federal Coul't as the case had the snm e defendant, the record was withheld by request on 2/23/2018 upon one specific case and the another case avaiable (sic) had insufficiept proof of servjce when the address was valid by 1801 Brook Road Richmond Virginia 23232 being a main office not a suite.
Com pl. 4, D kt. N o. 2. The plaintiff ç'seeks for m ongful action upon the civil proceeding by the dem anded nm otmt of 3500.00 or the nom inal dnm age obselwation of the court determ ination of stated claim .'' 1d.
Standard of R eview Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a court to dismiss an action ttriqf the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.'' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). ttgoluestions of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any point during the proceedings and may (or, more precisely, must) be raised sua sponte by the coult'' Brickwood Contractorss Inc. v. Datanet Eng'g. Inc., 369 F.3d 385, 390 (4th Cir. 2004).
Additionally, tmder 28 U.S.C. j 1915(e), which governs Lq forma pauperis proceedings, the court has <ça duty to screen initial filings.'' Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 656 (4th Cir. 2006). The court must dismiss a case Gdat any time'' if the court determines that the complaint dtfails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.''28 U.S.C. j 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In reviewing a complaint for dismissal under j 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the court applies the snme standard used to review a motion for dismissal tmder Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. De'Lonta v. Atmelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003). Although a pro .K plaintiffs pleadings are liberally construed, the complaint m ust contain sufficient factual allegations Cçto raise a right to relief above the speculative level'' and to (Estate a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'' Bell Atl. Corn. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007).
D iscussion Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and iipossess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.'' K okkonen v. Guardian Life lns. Co. of A m ., 511 U .S. 375, 377 (1994). Generally, federal district courts are authorized to hear cases arising out of federal law or involving diverse parties and a specified nmotmt in controversy. 28 U.S.C. jj 1331, 1332. U nder the w ell-pleaded com plaint rule, (:a suit arises under federal 1aw only w hen the plaintiY s statem ent of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon federal law .'' Vaden v. Discover *3 Bank. 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Having reviewed the com plaint, the court is constrained to conclude that it must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.Draper has not attempted to invoke diversity jurisdiction and he has failed to identify any violation of federal 1aw which might support the exercise of federal question jtuisdiction under j 1331.
M oreover * , under the Rooker-Feldm an doctrine, federal district courts do not have subject matter jurisdictioh to hear Stcases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.'' Exxon M obil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff seeks review of, or relief from, decisions by the Charlottesville General District Court, his complaint is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(h)(3). The appropriate avenue for contesting removal from state court to federal court is to tim ely tile a motion to rem and in the rem oved case. See 28 U .S.C. j 1447(c).
PlaintiY s complaint is also subject to dismissal under j 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Liberally construing the com plaint,it fails to allege suffcient facts to state a plausible claim for relief against the defendant. The complaint does not idéntify any cause of action under which the plaintiff seeks relief, and nor is one discem ible from the complaint. A ccordingly, the com plaint fails to state a claim for relief.
C onclusion For the reasons stated, the court grants the plaintiff s motion for leave to proceed Lq @The Rooker-Feldm an doctrine is nam ed aRer two Supreme Court cases , Rooker v. Fideliw Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
forma pauperis and dismisses the complaint plzrsuant to Rule 12(h)(3) and 28 U.S.C. j 1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk is directed to send certified copies of this memorandum opinion and the accompanying order to the plaintiff. X day of M ay 2018
DATED: This G