Opinion
Civil Action No. WMN-15-3141
11-10-2015
CHENIRE HARRELL-CARTER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent.
MEMORANDUM
On October 15, 2015, Chenire Harrell-Carter filed this action on a pre-printed form for filing a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255. For reasons to follow, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Harrell-Carter is disputing an April 22, 2015, Affidavit Judgment in the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City. (ECF 1). She avers she was improperly served in that case. Id. Consideration of this petition is informed by reference to the Maryland Judiciary Case Search Website, which shows that realty owned by Harrell-Carter is the subject of a foreclosure action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in Laura H.G. O'Sullivan v. Chemire Harrell-Carter, et al., Case Number 24O15001996. On October 8, 2015, the Circuit Court found deficiencies in the complaint for foreclosure and the substitute trustees have requested the matter nonetheless proceed. Id.
Harrell-Carter's first name is shown as Chenire and Chemire on the state electronic docket.
See http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=24O15001996&loc=69&detailLoc=CC. --------
Harrell-Carter's claims are not appropriately presented in this court by way of a § 2255 motion to vacate, a legal avenue for challenging a criminal conviction and sentence. To the extent she may intend to seek a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, this Court cannot act on her claim because federal district courts have no mandamus jurisdiction over state employees. Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 P.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969).
Harrell-Carter provides no grounds for the court to exercise jurisdiction over this matter. Federal jurisdiction is limited and available only when a "federal question" is presented or there is diversity of citizenship of the parties, neither of which is alleged nor apparent here. See U.S. Const. Art. 3 § 2; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. There is no presumption that jurisdiction is vested in the court. See Pinkley, Inc. v. City of Frederick, 191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir. 1999).
Consequently, the court will dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action."). A separate order reflecting this memorandum follows. 11/10/15
Date
/s/_________
William M. Nickerson
Senior United States District Judge