United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
K. BREDAR, CHIEF JUDGE.
Petition for Mandamus
Steven Moseley initiated this pro se litigation,
which sought a writ of mandamus "for revisory review of
fraud, perjury, abuse of discretion and orders exceeding
jurisdiction." (Pet., ECF No. 1.) Specifically. Moseley
requested a review of Case Number 13C11087194 in the Circuit
Court for Howard County, Maryland. (Id. 1.) He
claimed that his federal due process rights were violated by
the state court through the conduct of Circuit Court Judge
Richard S. Bernhardt, who allegedly denied Moseley a hearing
in his state court case involving child support.
alleged he did not receive a notice via first-class mail of a
hearing before an appointed master on the question of child
support until after the March 8, 2012, hearing. (Id.
4.) On March 22, 2012, he filed an exception to the
master's recommendation and requested a hearing because
his lack of employment and "other evidence relevant to
the case . . . would have resulted in a major difference in
the calculation of the child support award."
(Id.) The plaintiff in the state court
case-apparently, the child's mother and a respondent in
the instant federal case-filed a response to Moseley's
exception on March 27, 2012, and a motion to dismiss
exceptions on March 29, 2012. (id.) Moseley filed
his opposition to the motion to dismiss exceptions on April
6, 2012, and again requested a hearing on the matter.
(Id.) Judge Bernhardt did not rule on Moseley's
exception, instead entering an order for child support on
April 9, 2012. (Id. 5.) Because Judge Bernhardt did
not rule on Moseley's exception. Moseley contended in
this case that the judge operated outside of Maryland law,
specifically, Maryland Rule 9-208(h)(1)(A), which then
provided that "the court shall not direct the entry of
an order or judgment based upon the master's
recommendations until the expiration of the time for filing
exceptions, and if exceptions are timely filed, until the
court rules on the exceptions." (Pet. 5.) Moseley alleged
that Judge Bernhardt also ignored Maryland Rule 9-208(i)(2),
which states, "A hearing on exceptions, if timely
requested, shall be held within 60 days after the filing of
the exceptions unless the parties otherwise agree in
writing." (Pet. 6.) By not following these rules and by
not giving Moseley the hearing he requested, the state court,
Moseley alleged, denied him due process, thereby making the
state court's judgment void. (Id.)
further alleged that the state court dismissed his exception
on April 18, 2012, "without a formal written
reason." (Id. 7.) Then, on April 24, 2012,
Moseley filed a motion to vacate the child support order,
which Moseley, confusingly, alleges was denied on April 18,
2012. (Id.) His appeal to the Maryland Court of
Special Appeals was unsuccessful based on that court's
ruling that the violation of Maryland Rule 9-208(h)(1)(A) was
requested this Court order the following types of relief:
1. Issue an Emergency Preliminary Injunction against the
enforcement and collection of the void judgment to avoid
further irreparable harm of the inferior court while [the]
case is being reviewed by this court.
2. That the court issue a peremptory writ commanding
respondents to vacate the order issued against petitioner.
3. Issue a Declaratory Judgement that the process used by the
lower court was invalid and other appropriate for
4. Issue an order to remove Maryland State driving
restrictions. Credit Reporting Agency restrictions, and
remove the petitioner's name from all databases that
restrict liberties imposed on the petitioner due to inability
5. All other relief deemed just and proper in the premises.
Suit pending decision.
response to Moseley's petition, this Court granted him
in forma pauperis status but dismissed his petition.
(ECF Nos. 3, 4.) The Court determined the petition did not
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Mem. 2, Jan.
25, 2017. ECF No. 3.) The basis for that decision was that
the Court does not have original subject-matter jurisdiction
over paternity, child support, or child custody matters.
(Id.) That is true even if the moving party
establishes diversity jurisdiction. (Id.) Moreover,
the Court lacks mandamus jurisdiction over state employees,
such as the judge and the county prosecutor (the latter of
whom, apparently, being the one to have brought the child
support enforcement action against Moseley). (Id.
3.) Finally, the Court regarded Moseley's requests for
relief as ones barred by the Rooker-Feldmun ...