Moore v. Surles, 86-135-CIV-4.
Decision Date | 12 November 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 86-135-CIV-4.,86-135-CIV-4. |
Citation | 673 F. Supp. 1398 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
Parties | Walter L. MOORE, Plaintiff, v. Johnny C. SURLES, et al., Defendants. |
Walter L. Moore, pro se.
Isaac T. Avery, III, Linda Anne Morris, Deputy Attys. Gen., Lacy H. Thornburg, Atty. Gen., N.C. Dept. of Justice, Raleigh, N.C., for Johny C. Surles and Robert R. Mason.
Jacob L. Safron, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., N.C. Dept. of Justice, Raleigh, N.C., for William H. Andrews, Leonard Thagard, James R. Strickland and Herbert O. Phillips, III.
Walter L. Moore (Moore) was charged by North Carolina state troopers with two separate offenses concerning the registration of a vehicle. In the state district court he pled guilty to the charges but then appealed the sentences to the superior court. In the superior court Moore again pled guilty and was sentenced to twenty-nine days in jail, suspended on certain conditions, including the payment of court costs in the amount of $109. After attempting, unsuccessfully, to pay the fine with a "public money note" he was ordered committed to jail. From that order he appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, where the order of the superior court was affirmed.
Moore instituted this action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986, against the state troopers who issued the citation, the state attorneys who prosecuted the cases, and the state superior court judges who tried the cases, seeking both injunctive relief and damages. The case was assigned to Judge James C. Fox of this court who, on 18 February 1987, acting on motions by defendants dismissed the action.
By motions filed on 21 August 1987 the United States Attorney of this district seeks to reopen the case and cancel a lien filed by plaintiff against real estate of members of the family of Judge Fox. Sanctions are also sought. Plaintiff has responded, and the motions are ripe for ruling. Upon motion of plaintiff, Judge Fox has recused and the case is now on the calendar of the undersigned.
On 26 February 1987 plaintiff filed a document in this action entitled "Judicial Notice" which after several paragraphs of incoherent recitations1 concludes by demanding that On 12 March 1987 plaintiff filed a "NOTICE AND DEMAND" for the filing of a common-law lien in the office of the Register of Deeds of New Hanover County as follows:
The "lien" was filed in Book 1366, page 1588, of the New Hanover County Registry and has attached to it a photocopy of a partition deed among the children of Judge Fox of lands in which Judge Fox's wife, Katherine R. Fox, has a life estate.
In his response to the pending motions plaintiff states:
"It is essential to the establishment of a lien on property that a debt from the owner of the property be proved." Empire Trust Co. v. Egypt Ry. Co., 182 F. 100 (C.C.N.C. 1910); see also Boone v. Chatfield, 118 N.C. 916, 24 S.E. 745 (1896); Thigpen v. Leigh, 93 N.C. 47 (1885); Coker v. Stevens, 43 N.C.App. 352, 258 S.E.2d 794 (1979); Ply-Marts, Inc. v. Phileman, 40 N.C.App. 767, 253 S.E.2d 494 (1979). From the documents filed it is obvious that neither Judge Fox nor any member of his family is indebted to Moore in any way.
"Common-law liens" even when they were applicable dealt only with personal property and were valid only in favor of a creditor in possession. Whiteside v. Rocky Mountain Fuel Co., 101 F.2d 765 (10th Cir.1938), cert. denied, 307 U.S. 640, 59 S.Ct. 1038, 83 L.Ed. 1521 (1939).
In North Carolina the creation and perfection of liens against both personal and real property is governed entirely by statute. Chapter 44 of the General Statutes of North Carolina covers various types of liens, such as liens by a laborer for wages due from his employer, liens for ambulance services, etc. Chapter 44A of the General Statutes of North Carolina deals with possessory liens on personal property and statutory liens on real property, as well as liens by owners of self-storage facilities on the personal property stored in those facilities.
Chapter 1, Article 11 of the General Statutes of North Carolina governs lis pendens, however, it applies only to actions affecting title to property. Chapter 1, Article 35 of the General Statutes of North Carolina governs attachment. North Carolina General Statute 1-440.3 specifies those actions in which attachment may be had as, e.g., when the defendant is a nonresident. Clearly, however, none of the requirements of the statute are met in this action.
In short, there is no statutory authority for the filing of the "lien" in this case. Thus, the lien is void and of no effect.
It is abundantly clear that the sole purpose of the filing of the purported "lien" by Moore was to harass Judge Fox. Moore has demonstrated his disrespect, indeed, his contempt, for the court system and our system of government itself by his actions in this case and the underlying case and his attempts to pay his fine with a spurious "public office money note." Having found the lien to be void and of no effect, the question remains whether this court has the authority to order the cancellation of that lien in the office of the Register of Deeds of New Hanover County, North Carolina.
"A federal court may, in its discretion, exercise ancillary jurisdiction to hear fee disputes and lien claims ... when the dispute relates to the main action, regardless of the jurisdictional basis of the main action." Petition of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Payne v. DURACELL USA
...facts would have revealed that this claim was precluded. Pro se litigants as well as attorneys are subject to Rule 11. Moore v. Surles, 673 F.Supp. 1398 (E.D.N.C.1987). The Court agrees that Plaintiff violated the rule by filing his demotion claim. The Court does not consider an award of co......
-
Mann v. Swiggett, 5:10-CV-172-D
...9, 2008) (unpublished); United States v. MacElvain, 858 F. Supp. 1096,1100-02 (M.D. Ala. 1994) (collecting cases); Moore v. Surles, 673 F. Supp. 1398, 1400-01 (E.D.N.C. 1987); see also United States v. McGugan, 600 F. Supp. 2d 608, 610-15 & nn. 2-3 (D.N.J. 2009). Likewise, Swiggett's notice......