United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
CAROLYN A. RUTHERFORD TATE, Plaintiff,
MECKLENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT, RONALD L. TATE, Defendants.
J. CONRAD, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff's
letter-motion seeking reconsideration of the dismissal of her
July 31, 2017 Complaint. (Doc. No. 6.) The Court dismissed
the pro se Complaint on the grounds that it was frivolous and
failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). (Doc. No. 4).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a court to correct
orders and provide relief from judgment under certain
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence . . .; (3) fraud[, ] . . .
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4)
the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment
that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason
that justifies relief.
Civ. P. 60(b). None of those circumstances apply here.
extent it is intelligible, Plaintiff's Complaint appears
to seek enforcement of one or more domestic relations orders
entered by an unidentified state court, reimbursement from
her ex-husband for certain injuries, reinstatement of
parental rights, relief from harassment by her
ex-husband's girlfriends, and a number of other
nonsensical forms of relief. (Compl., Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff
claims the following injuries: “Hearsay - missiles -
brain damage, (illegible) of operations, children brutalized,
brain trauma inside of body [and] forced psycho medication,
mental cruelties, being (illegible) [and] exposed to family,
inlaws [sic], relatives[, ] friends, and his various
associations.” (Compl. 3). In seeking reconsideration
of the Court's frivolity review, Plaintiff explains:
I requested your Honorable Decision for Federal Payment and
Health Aid from my ex-husband, that he is in contempt of
Court Orders of 90 CVD 459. I also request that the Orders be
enforced with adequate Counsel and Representation for 1/2 the
mentioned Military Pension exact Amount as mentioned, Health
Care for ruffles and damages he has obtained through his
evasive manipulations and actions with unsavory and dubious
persons by way of inadequate considerations and circumstances
from our Top Secret Clearance Orders of the United States
Government and U.S. Militarys [sic].
(Letter-motion 1, Doc. No. 6).
the facts alleged in the Complaint hint, at a minimum, of
delusion. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28
(1989). More importantly, however, Plaintiff has not alleged
facts which set forth a claim under federal law.
federal district court has jurisdiction over all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331. Plaintiff has not
pled facts indicating a violation of federal law or of the
United States Constitution; nor has she pled facts that would
allow the Court to identify a federal law or constitutional
right Plaintiff might be attempting to invoke. Notably,
although she names the “Mecklenburg Police
Department” as a defendant, Plaintiff does not plead
any relevant facts related to that entity. Furthermore, she
does not allege that Defendant Ronald Tate, her ex-husband,
was a state actor at any time relevant to her Complaint.
See e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
short, Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action under
federal law. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007). Moreover, Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to
indicate that the Court has jurisdiction over this action.
courts are “courts of limited jurisdiction.”
Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S.
365, 374 (1978). They possess only the power authorized by
Article III of the United States Constitution and statutes
enacted by Congress pursuant thereto. See Bender v.
Williamsport Area Sch. Dist, 475 U.S. 534, 541-42
noted, Plaintiff has not stated a cause of action arising
under a federal law or the federal Constitution. See
§ 1331. A federal district court also has original
jurisdiction over a case or controversy involving citizens of
different states, if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,
000. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a)(1). Nothing in the Complaint
indicates that diversity jurisdiction exists here. In fact,
Plaintiff provides North Carolina addresses for herself and
both Defendants. Consequently, she has failed to allege
sufficient facts indicating the Court has jurisdiction over
Plaintiff is not entitled to relief from judgment under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Additionally, the Court concludes that it
does not have subject ...