Joyner v. Prince William Cnty. Circuit Court

1

JUNIUS J. JOYNER, III, Plaintiff, v. PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-00725 (PTG/JFA)

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

March 10, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PATRICIA TOLLIVER GILES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On July 27, 2022, Defendant Emily B. Redman (“Defendant” or “Defendant Redman”) filed a Motion to Dismiss requesting that this Court (1) dismiss this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6), and (2) enter a pre-filing injunction against Plaintiff (“Motion”).^[1] Dkt. 9. Plaintiff, Junius J. Joyner III, is proceeding pro se.^[2] In her Motion, Defendant advised Plaintiff that the Motion could be granted on the basis of her papers if Plaintiff failed to file a response within twenty-one (21) days of the filing of the Motion. See Local Rule 7(k) of the Eastern District of Virginia; Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). On August 17 2022, Plaintiff opposed Defendant's Motion. Dkt. 30.

The Court has reviewed the parties' memoranda and this case is ripe for disposition. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 9) is granted.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This matter stems from Plaintiffs Complaint (Dkt. 1) filed on June 27, 2022 against his ex-wife, Defendant Redman, in addition to other defendants who have since been dismissed.^[3] See Dkts. 20, 21, 50. Plaintiff and Defendant were previously married and divorced on March 29, 2011. Dkt. 1 ¶ 14. Plaintiff and Defendant share two children together, and have been parties to various child custody proceedings in Prince William County Circuit Court. See Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 1-3, 10, 14-18.

In the instant case, Plaintiff is suing Defendant Redman for (1) Tortious Interference with Parental Rights, (2) Petition for Rule to Show Cause, and (3) Petition to Modify Custody. Id. at 26-28. Plaintiff alleges Defendant “intentionally and illegally interfered with his parental and custodial relationship to the point that [Plaintiff] no longer has any custodial rights and virtually no parental relationship with Children.” Dkt. 1 ¶ 103. Plaintiff requests, among other things, a “Rule to Show Cause” hearing for Defendant for allegedly violating the terms of a custody order issued by the Prince William County Circuit Court. Dkt. 1 ¶ 105. Plaintiff further petitions this Court to modify a pre-existing custody order filed December 17, 2021.^[4] Dkt. 1 at 28-29.

Plaintiff further requests compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000,000, in addition to punitive damages in the amount of $5,000,000 related to the tortious interference claim. Dkt. 1 at 29. Plaintiff also asserted a § 1983 claim against Prince William County Circuit Court and three judges-Judge Horan, Judge Weimer, Jr., and Judge Irving-in addition to a tortious interference claim against the judges. Dkt. 1 at 24-26. On January 11,2023, this Court dismissed those claims based on sovereign and judicial immunity. Dkt. 50.

On July 27, 2022, Defendant Redman filed the instant Motion. On September 7, 2022, Defendant noticed a hearing for October 27, 2022. Dkt. 34. On September 15, 2022, Plaintiff requested that the Court decide the motion on the papers, or alternatively for permission to attend the hearing remotely. Dkt. 36. Amongst other reasons, Plaintiff represented that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest and that if he came to Virginia, he “in all likelihood would be arrested.” Dkt. 36 at 2. On September 19, 2022, this Court denied Plaintiffs request to appear remotely. Dkt. 37. Despite the Court's denial of his request to appear remotely and his request that the Court decide the motion on the papers without a hearing, Plaintiff failed to appear at the October 27, 2022 hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Defense counsel was present on behalf of Defendant. Dkt. 42.

This is Plaintiffs second lawsuit filed against his ex-wife in recent years in this district. On March 24,2021, Plaintiff filed a previous lawsuit against Defendant Redman for: (1) Violation of Due Process Rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) Intentional [Infliction] of Emotional Distress; and (3) Petition to Modify Custody. See Joyner v. Redman, No. 1:21 -cv-357,2021 WL 2406871, at * 1 (E.D. Va. June 11,2021), affd as modified sub nom. Joyner v. Redman, No. 21-1690, 2021 WL 5412330 (4th Cir. Nov. 19, 2021). On June 11, 2021, Judge Claude M. Hilton dismissed that suit pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). Id. at *2. Specifically, Judge Hilton held that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for the § 1983 claim and without that claim, he declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining causes of action. Id. On June 27,2022, Plaintiff filed the instant case, again requesting this Court modify the parties' custody order, in addition to other requested relief. See Dkt. 1 at 28-29. The underlying facts of the instant case are akin to those in Plaintiffs prior case in this district. Compare Joyner v. Redman, l:21-cv-357, Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 13-23; 27-37; 39-44; 47-59, with Joyner v. Prince William County Circuit Court, et al., l:22-cv-725, Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 50-60; 63-73; 74-79; 80-92.

IL DISCUSSION

In her Motion, Defendant contends that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims because Plaintiff does not assert any federal law claims against her and that this Court should decline to exercise supplemental or diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. 11 at 2, 10. This Court agrees.

Subject matter jurisdiction defines this Court's power to adjudicate cases or controversies, and without it, the Court “can only decide that it does not have jurisdiction.” United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789,793 (4th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). A lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or forfeited and no other matter can be decided without subject matter jurisdiction. Id. While the Court must construe pro se complaints liberally, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,94 (2007), “[p]rinciples requiring generous construction ofpro se complaints are not ... without limits.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff bears the burden to establish federal jurisdiction over his claims. See Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 1999).

“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ” Dinkins v. Region Ten CSB, 289 F.Supp. 3D 756, 758 (W.D. Va. 2018) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1331).

Federal courts also possess subject matter jurisdiction over all civil actions when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and the parties' citizenship is completely diverse. Id. at 759 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332).

In this case, Plaintiffs Complaint did assert claims against other defendants under federal law, specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, all of the defendants subject to those claims have since been dismissed from this action. Dkt. 50. In his opposition to Defendant's Motion, Plaintiff argues that he seeks federal redress based on Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provision stating, “district court[s] shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” Dkt. 30 at 5. As discussed above, the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. See Dkt. 50.

Plaintiff also argues that even if the Court dismisses the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, “in the interest of fairness and the unique underlying issues showing Father cannot receive a fair trial in state court,” the Court should retain jurisdiction over his state law claims. Dkt. 30 at 6. Without the § 1983 claim, however, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs remaining causes of action. 28 U.S.C. § 1367; see also ESAB Group, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. PLC, 685 F.3d 376, 394 (4th Cir. 2012) (“Section 1367(c) recognizes courts' authority to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in limited circumstances, including ... where the court dismisses the claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”); see also McCoy v. Endicott, No. 19-7621, 2021 WL 5320862, at *2 (4th Cir. Nov. 16, 2021) (“...in a § 1983 case, it is not uncommon for a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the § 1983 claim.”) (citation omitted).

Additionally, in filing this case, Plaintiff is impermissibly asking this Court to review a state court order. See, e.g, Dkt. 1 at 28-29; see also Dkt. 30 at 11. The Fourth Circuit, however, provides that “district courts have no original diversity jurisdiction ... to determine child custody, or to decree visitation,” and federal courts should “be alert to preclude what are genuinely ... child custody and support cases from creeping around the barrier.” Cole v. Cole, 633 F.2d 1083,1087- 88 (4th Cir. 1980); see also Cantor v. Cohen, 442 F.3d 196, 202 (4th Cir. 2006) (“[F]ederal courts ... generally abstain from hearing child custody matters.”). Plaintiffs intention is obvious given that he explicitly asks the Court to modify the existing custody order and order a show cause hearing. Dkt. 1 at 28-29. These requests concern “what are genuinely ... child custody” matters and thus federal courts lack authority to grant the relief Plaintiff seeks.^[5] See Cole, 633 F.2d at 1087-88.

Dismissal is warranted for another reason. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes Plaintiffs request for damages related to injuries arising from a state court decision. “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars...