United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Charlottesville Division
E. CONRAD SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cedrick Euron Draper, proceeding pro se, filed this action on
April 2, 2018, naming the Charlottesville General District
Court as the defendant. This matter is currently before the
court on the plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. Although the court grants the
motion, for the reasons that follow, the court concludes that
the complaint must be dismissed under Rule 12(h)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §
plaintiffs complaint states as follows:
Case No.: GV18000089-00 AND GV18000043-00 was dismissed and
transferred to Federal Court as the case had the same
defendant, the record was withheld by request on 2/23/2018
upon one specific case and the another case avaiable [sic]
had insufficient proof of service when the address was valid
by 1801 Brook Road Richmond Virginia 23232 being a main
office not a suite.
4, Dkt. No. 2. The plaintiff "seeks for wrongful action
upon the civil proceeding by the demanded amount of 3500.00
or the nominal damage observation of the court determination
of stated claim." Id.
12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a
court to dismiss an action "[i]f the court determines at
any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). "[Q]uestions 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 court." Brickwood
Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet Eng'g. Inc., 369 F.3d
385, 390 (4th Cir. 2004).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), which governs in forma
pauperis proceedings, the court has "a 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 "at any time" if the court
determines that the complaint "fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In reviewing a complaint for dismissal
under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the court applies the same
standard used to review a motion for dismissal under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
De'Lonta v. Angelone. 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th
Cir. 2003). Although a pro se plaintiffs pleadings are
liberally construed, the complaint must contain sufficient
factual allegations "to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level" and to "state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007).
courts have limited jurisdiction and "possess only that
power authorized by Constitution and statute."
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 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 amount in
controversy. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Under the
well-pleaded complaint rule, "a suit arises under
federal law only when the plaintiffs statement of his own
cause of action shows that it is based upon federal
law." Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S.
49, 60 (2009) (alterations and internal quotation marks
reviewed the complaint, 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 law which might support the exercise of federal
question jurisdiction under § 1331.
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, [*] federal district
courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear
"cases 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 Mobil 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 timely file a motion to remand in the removed
case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
complaint is also subject to dismissal under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Liberally . construing the complaint, it
fails to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim
for relief against the defendant. The complaint does not
identify any cause of action under which the plaintiff seeks
relief, and nor is ...