United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
DANIELLE A. CARTER, Plaintiff,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,  Defendants.
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
E. Gates United States Magistrate Judge
pro se case is before the court on the motion (D.E. 1) by
plaintiff Danielle A. Carter ("plaintiff) to proceed
in forma pauperis ("IFP") under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1) and for the associated frivolity review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff
separately moves (D.E. 4) to correct her proposed civil cover
sheet. The motions and frivolity review were referred to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). See, e.g., unnumbered 2 Apr. 2018 Public
D.E. For the reasons stated below, the court will allow
plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
motion to correct her proposed civil cover sheet, but
recommend that this action be dismissed as frivolous pursuant
to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
ON IN FORMA PA UPERIS MOTION
on the information in the motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, the court finds that plaintiff has adequately
demonstrated her inability to prepay the required court
costs. Her motion (D.E. 1) to proceed in forma
pauperis is therefore ALLOWED.
ON MOTION TO CORRECT CIVIL COVER SHEET
moves to correct an error in her proposed civil cover sheet
(D.E. 1-2). She states that she checked the box on the sheet
indicating the case is a class action pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 when it is not. See Civ. Cover Sheet §
VII. Plaintiff s motion to correct is ALLOWED. The box in the
civil cover sheet for identification of this case as a class
action shall be deemed to be unchecked.
AND RECOMMENDATION ON FRIVOLITY REVIEW
PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS
proposed complaint, filed 26 March 2018, plaintiff purports
to assert claims against defendants arising from the
termination of her parental rights on or about 4 October
2013. Prop. Compl. (D.E. 1-1) ¶¶ 2,
Specifically, according to plaintiffs proposed complaint, on
that date, a caseworker entered her home without
identification to remove her child from the home.
Id. at 4 ¶ 9. Plaintiff was told that the child
would be removed within 30 minutes and that plaintiffs only
option was for the child to enter kinship care. Id.
at 6 ¶ 9. The caseworker attempted to contact the
child's biological father to enforce and establish
paternity, but plaintiff rejected these attempts.
Id. at 7 ¶ 9. The child was ultimately removed
from plaintiffs home and plaintiff was only allowed one hour
of visitation per week. Id. The caseworkers treated
plaintiff with intimidation and discrimination, and slandered
and defamed her character. Id. at 7-8 ¶ 9.
Plaintiff was coerced under fraud and duress to sign and
relinquish her parental rights. Id. at 8 ¶ 9.
In her proposed complaint, she appears to assert claims for
fraud, involuntary adoption, discrimination, defamation,
malpractice, and tort. Id. ¶ 4. Plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages of $36 million to$l billion.
Id. at 8¶9.
initial attachment to her proposed complaint, filed 19 April
2018, plaintiff contends that the removal of her child was a
conspiracy against plaintiffs civil rights as well as her
child's civil rights. 1 st Attach. (D.E. 5) 1. She seeks
termination of the conspiracies, no interference with her
reproductive rights, restoration of her parental rights and
termination of any parental or custodial rights of the
child's adoptive parents. Id. at 1-2.
second attachment, filed 26 April 2018, plaintiff seeks to
add tort claims arising from physical injuries she suffered
from the termination of her parental rights, as well as
claims for exploitation, child abduction, abuse, espionage,
identity theft, endangerment, and violent extremism. 2nd
Attach. (D.E. 6) ¶ 9.
in a third attachment, filed 30 April 2018, plaintiff appears
to seek to add the minor child as a plaintiff and assert
additional claims for sexual harassment, discrimination based
on sexual orientation and disability, conspiracies against
civil rights, and personal injury. 3rd Attach. (D.E. 7) 3-5.
She seeks permanent reunification of plaintiff and her child,
an award of sole custody to plaintiff, expungement of
records, and allowing the child to be on television with an
alias. Id. at 6.
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
court must dismiss a case brought in forma pauperis
if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious,
or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii); see Denton v.
Hernandez,504 U.S. 25, 27 (1992). A complaint is
frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in
law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). The court is not permitted to dismiss a