Washington v. Walls
| Docket Number | C/A 9:22-01675-RMG-MHC |
| Decision Date | 05 July 2023 |
| Parties | Laureen Glaze Washington; Leroy Ernest Glaze, Jr., Plaintiffs, v. Maria Walls, Beaufort County Treasurer; Dore Law Firm P.A., Attorney; Herbert N. Glaze, Paternal Uncle; The State of South Carolina; C; Kenneth E. Fulp, Jr., Beaufort County Probate Judge, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil action filed by Plaintiff Laureen Glaze Washington (Washington), a pro se litigant. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), pretrial proceedings in this action have been referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge. In an Order entered October 27, 2022, Plaintiff Washington was directed to file certain documents (a summons form for Defendant The State of South Carolina and a Form USM-285 for each Defendant listed in the case) to bring her case into proper form. She was also apprised of material deficits in the Complaint and given time to file an amended complaint. Additionally, to the extent that Plaintiff Washington was attempting to assert claims on behalf of the Estates of her parents, Leroy Ernest Glaze and Ruth Hamilton Glaze, she was directed to apprise this court whether she had been able to obtain counsel for the Estates. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff Washington and her brother, Plaintiff Leroy Ernest Glaze, Jr. (Glaze, Jr.),[1] filed an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 21.
On November 21, 2022, Plaintiff Washington filed a motion she titled “motion to dismiss.”[2] ECF No. 18. To the extent that Plaintiff Washington is asking that one or more Defendants be dismissed from this action, this does not appear to be her intent as she does not appear to be asking that Defendants be dropped from her lawsuit. Instead, Plaintiff Washington appears to be asking that Defendants be held in default.[3] Plaintiff Washington claims that Defendants were required to respond by filing an answer after the court granted her motion to proceed in forma pauperis and she filed Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories. Id. at 3. However as noted in the October 2022 Order (ECF No. 7), no process is to issue in this case until the required proper form items are reviewed by the assigned magistrate judge. No serve order has been issued in this case, such that Plaintiff Washington's motion to dismiss, which instead appears to be a motion for default judgment, is premature. Thus, it is recommended that Plaintiff Washington's motion to dismiss/motion for default (ECF No. 18) be denied.
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert that their basis for federal court jurisdiction is federal question and they bring federal claims under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 to 3733. ECF No. 21 at 3. They also assert diversity of citizenship as a basis for federal court jurisdiction and appear to be attempting to allege claims under South Carolina law. Id. at 3, 17, and 20.
Plaintiffs submitted numerous “Statement of Claim” sections in which they allege:
On May 22, 1944, The State of SC, County of BFT [Beaufort] removed and altered Plaintiffs original deed with seal belonging to Plaintiffs parents deced[e]nts Leroy E. Glaze and Ruth H. Glaze (see Ex F), Deed Book 61 page 513. See (Ex A) Fraudulent Deed.
See ECF No. 21 at 9, 12-25 (errors in original). Plaintiffs request monetary damages. See id. at 910, 12-14, 18-19, 21-25.
This case is before the Court for pre-service review. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1997) (pleadings by non-prisoners should also be screened). Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se Amended Complaint herein pursuant to the procedural provisions of § 1915, and in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); and Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983).
Section 1915 permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without paying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. However, to protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding that the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A finding of frivolousness can be made where the complaint “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. at 31. Hence, under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. at 327.
This Court is required to liberally construe pro se complaints, which are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). Nonetheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) ().
Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, may be attempting to bring claims on behalf of the Estate of their father, Leroy Ernest Glaze, and perhaps on behalf of the Estate of their mother, Ruth Hamilton Glaze. However, Plaintiffs have presented no facts to indicate that they may appear for or represent the Estates.
Additionally Plaintiffs have not obtained counsel to represent the Estates in this action. Under federal law, “a person ordinarily may not appear pro se in the cause of another person or entity.” See Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 F.3d 391, 392-93 (2nd Cir. 1997) (). Courts are in general agreement that where an estate has beneficiaries other than the personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial