United States District Court, D. Maryland
SHERRY RAY EVELAND, In the matter of direct legal descendent of the Estate Legal executor/personal representative of James Ray Charles deceased father JODY EVELAND, SR. JODY EVELAND, JR. Plaintiffs
THE STATE OF MARYLAND, through its legal representative Brian Frosh, Esq. LEONARD E. WILSON LAW OFFICE ANDRUIS D. ROGERS WILLIAM RIDDLE LAW FIRM LAW FIRM OF ROLLINS & DELLMYER, P.A. CHARLES BERNSTEIN, alleged judge BELINDA K. CONAWAY, ESQ. Defendants
Catherine C. Blake, United States District Judge.
above-entitled action was filed on March 15, 2016, together
with the full civil filing fee. In the complaint, as
supplemented (ECF 1 and 2), plaintiffs sought money damages
and an injunction prohibiting further Orphans Court
proceedings concerning a family member's estate, and
argued that defendants are engaging in a conspiracy against
the estate of James Ray Charles, and against them as rightful
heirs. (ECF 1 at pp. 1-3).
March 23, 2016, the undersigned dismissed the complaint
without prejudice and denied injunctive relief. (ECF 5 and
6). Plaintiffs noted an appeal. (ECF 12). Pursuant to the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit,  this court was ordered to provide
plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint
providing facts in support of their conspiracy claim (ECF
15). Plaintiffs have filed a “Motion and
Response” that shall be construed as an amended
complaint (ECF 18) and dismissed for reasons to follow.
claim to have an interest in the estate of James Ray Charles.
They invoke federal question and civil rights jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) as
well as diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
and also raise state tort claims involving supplemental
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). They argue that
the defendants are engaging in a conspiracy against the
estate and against them as rightful heirs with the intent of
stealing their property and “looting” the estate.
(ECF 1 at pp. 1-3; ECF 18 at pp. 2-5).
matters involving the estate of James R. Charles are pending
in the Circuit Court for Cecil County, Maryland. See In
the Matter of: Estate of James R. Charles, Case No.
07-C-15-000730 (Cir. Ct. Cecil Co.) (Orphans Court No.
19461) . Examination of the docket suggests that
one or more of the plaintiffs involved in the instant action
has sought to remove the matter to the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia (docket entry 38, January
12, 2016) and has filed for emergency injunctive relief to
prevent liquidation of the estate assets (docket entry 39,
January 22, 2016). The case remains open in the Circuit
Court. Further, one or more of the plaintiffs has filed a
separate civil action against defendants in the Circuit Court
for Cecil County. See Sherry Ray Eveland, et a. v.
Leonard E. Wilson, et al., Case No. 07-C-15-000185 (Cir.
Ct. Cecil Co.). A motion to remove proceedings to the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia was filed
in that case as well. (See docket entries 6 and 7).
precise factual basis for plaintiffs' complaint, even
after amendment, is not readily apparent from the pleadings.
It appears to be based on their assertion that they, not
defendants, are entitled to appear on behalf of the estate
and that the defendants allegedly are committing thefts
against the estate, in conspiracy with various state court
judges and court staff. The Younger abstention
doctrine “requires a federal court to abstain from
interfering in state proceedings, even if jurisdiction
exists, ” if there is: “(1) an ongoing state
judicial proceeding, instituted prior to any substantial
progress in the federal proceeding; that (2) implicates
important, substantial, or vital state interests; and (3)
provides an adequate opportunity for the plaintiff to raise
the federal constitutional claim advanced in the federal
lawsuit.” Laurel Sand & Gravel, Inc. v.
Wilson, 519 F.3d 156, 165 (4th Cir. 2008).
“Younger is not merely a principle of
abstention; rather, the case sets forth a mandatory rule of
equitable restraint, requiring the dismissal of a federal
action.” Williams v.Lubin, 516 F.Supp.2d 535,
539 (D. Md. 2 007) (internal quotation omitted). Resolution
of state probate matters is a vital state interest with which
this court will not interfere, absent unusual circumstances
not shown by these plaintiffs.
there are no facts alleged from which a reasonable conclusion
may be drawn that these defendants conspired to deprive
plaintiffs of their constitutional rights. Indeed, after
thoroughly reviewing the complaint, the amended complaint,
and the attachments thereto, it cannot be discerned what
conduct or events occurred that may have resulted in a
plausible cause of action accruing on plaintiffs' behalf.
See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8.
for all the reasons stated above, the complaint, as
supplemented, will be dismissed and, for reasons earlier
stated, injunctive relief will be denied. A separate order
 See Eveland, et al. v. State of
Maryland, et al., No. 16-1562 (4th Cir. August 22, 2016)
 Additional allegations concerning
antitrust regulations, honest services, falsification of
court documents to cover up theft, tax fraud, and use of the
United States mail also are generally pleaded without