Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Dora L. Adkins, Petitioner v. HBL, LLC

APPENDICES:

Appendix A Per Curiam of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit Order:

-

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT

OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUI

T

No. 17-1940

DORA L. ADKIN

Plaintiff Appellant,

-

V.

HBL, LLC,

Defendant Appellee.

-

Appeal from the united St

ates District Court for the

Eastern District of Virgini

Alexandria. T. S. Illis, III, Se

a, at

nior District Judge. (1:17-cv

-00774-TSE-TCB)

Submitted: Novei ber 16, 20

17

Decided: November 20, 2017

Before GREGORY , Chief Jud

ge, and TRAXLER and KEEN

AN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpulished pe

r curiam opinion.

Dora L. Adkins, Appellant Pro

Unpublished opinins are not

Se.

binding precedent in this cir

cuit.

FILED: November 20, 2017

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1940

(1:17-cv-00774-TSE-TCB)

DORA L. ADKI

Plaiiiff

-

Appellant

V

HBL, LLC

Defrdant Appellee

-

JUDGMENT

In accordarc4 with the decision of this court, this

This judgmrjt shall take effect upon issuance of

accordance with

appeal is dismissed.

this courts mandate in

R. App. P. 41.

/s/ PATRICIA S. CONNOR, CLERK

PER CURIAM:

Dora L. Adlins appeals from

civil action. We h4ive review

ed the record and find no rev

deny leave to proced in forma

the district court.

five district court orders enter

ed in her unsuccessful

ersible error. Accordingly, we

pauperis and dismiss the ap

peal for the reasons stated by

dkins v. HBL, LLC, No, 1,: 17

18, 2017 & entered July 19,

cv-00774-TSE-TCB (E.D. Va

2017; filed July 25, 2017 &

. filed July

entered July 26, 2017; filed

1, 2017 & entered Aug. 2, 20

17; Aug. 2. 2017; Aug. 11,

argument because the fac

ts and legal contentions are

Aug.

2017), We dispense with ora

l

adequately presented in the

materials before thl court an

d argument would not aid the

decis

ional process.

DISMISSED

2

Appendix B Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc by the United States

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Order granting Motion to Supplement, Stay

of Mandate and Order and Formal Mandate:

-

FILED: December 4, 2017

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1940

(1: 17-cv-00774-TSE-TCB)

DORA L. AD

F1ai4iff Ap1lant

-

MAI

HBL, LLC

-

Appellee

ORDER

Upon consileration of submissions relative to the motion to supplement, the

court grants the

to supplement the rehearing as filed. No further supplement

may be filed.

For the Court--By Direction

Is! Patricia S. Connor, Clerk

FILED: November 29, 2017

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1940

(1: 17-cv-00774-TSE-TCB)

DORA L. ADKI S

Plaintij

-

Appellant

V.

HBL, LLC

t

Appellee

-

STAY OF MANDATE UNDER

FED. R. APP. P. 41(d)(1)

Under Fed

App. P. 41(d)(1), the timely filing of a petition for rehearing

or rehearing en b

or the timely filing of a motion to stay the mandate stays the

mandate until the

urt has ruled on the petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc

or motion to stay

accordance with Rule 41(d)(1), the mandate is stayed pending

further order of

court.

/s/Patricia S. Connor, Clerk

FILED: January 2, 2018

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1940

(1: 17-cv-00774-TSE-TCB)

DORA L. ADKINS

-

Appellant

V

HBL, LLC

Defendant Appellee

-

ORDER

The court 4nies the petition for rehearing and rehearing en bane

. No judge

requested a poll u4der Fed. R. App. P. 35 on the petition for

rehearing en bane.

Entered at tIie direction of the panel: Chief Judge Gregory, Judge

Traxi

er and

Judge Keenan.

For the Court

Is! Patricia S. Connor, Clerk

FILED: January 10, 2018

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 171940

(1: 17-cv-00774-TSE-TCB)

DORA L. ADKI S

Plairitil

-

Appellant

V.

HBL, LLC

Defe ic

-

Appellee

MANDATE

The i

of this court, entered 11/20/2017, takes effect today.

This constitites the formal mandate 'of this court issued pursuant to Rule

41(a) of the F

Rules of Appellate Procedure.

/s/Patricia S. Connor, Clerk

Appendix C In the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,

Orders: Order, Dated, July 18, 2017; Order, Dated, July 25, 2017; Order," Dated,

August 1, 2017; Order, Dated, August 2, 2017; and Order, Dated, August 11, 2017.

-

Case 1:17cv-00774-TSE-TCB Document 4 Filed 07/18/17 Page 1 of 5 PagelD# 173

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

DORA L ADKINS,

Plaintiff,

V.

HBL,LLCetaL,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:17-cv-774

ORDER

The matter is before the Court on a sua sponte review of the record. Because it is

apparent from the face of the complaint that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, this matter

must be dismissed without prejudice.

On July 7, 2017, the pro se plaintiff filed a prolix, meandering complaint against

defendant HBL, LLC (an insurance company) and, apparently, several Mercedes-Benz service

stations in the greater Washington, D.C. area. Plaintiff alleges four state-law causes of action: (I)

Conspiracy, (2) Breach of Contract, (3) Gross Negligence, and (4) Intentional Infliction of

Emotional Distress. Plaintiff's somewhat nebulous complaint appears to accuse defendants of

inter a/ia, tiling to service plaintiff's Mercedes properly, stealing plaintiff's jewelry and library

card, and conspiring to kill plaintiff. Plaintiff also contends that some service stations

embarrassed her by unlawfully refusing to service her car altogether because she has repeatedly

sued those stations. Plaintiff further claims that because her vehicle is currently inoperable, and

because she is "allergic to smells and odors from public transportation," she has suffered severe

emotional distress. Compl. at 29. The complaint seeks $36,701.67 in compensatory damages,

based on an itemized list of costs plaintiff attributes to defendants' misconduct, as well as

$50,000,000 in punitive damages—ten million for each count, plus another ten million for good

I

Case 1:17-cv-00774-TSE-TCB Document 4 Filed 07/18/17 Page 2 of 5 PagelD# 174

measure as a Prima Fade Case and/or whatever else the Court deem [sic] appropriate." ki. at

41.

Importantly, federal courts are "courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction, and as such

there is no presumption that the court has jurisdiction." PinkJey, Inc. v. City of Frederic/c; Md.,

191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir. 1999). In fact, "[a] federal court is obliged to dismiss a case

whenever it appears the court tacks subject matter jurisdiction." Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d

648, 654 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)).' Questions of subject matter

jurisdiction, therefore, "may (or more precisely, must) be raised sua sponte by the court."

Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. Dalanet Eng 'g, Inc., 369 F.3d 385,390(4th Cir. 2004) (en bane).

In this respect, "the facts providing the court jurisdiction must be affirmatively alleged in the

complaint." Pinkley, 191 F.3d at 399. A complaint must therefore allege facts supporting at least

one of two potential bases for subject matter jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction or

diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question); id § 1332 (diversity).

Here, the complaint, even charitably construed, does not allege any basis for subject

matter jurisdiction. To begin with, there no federal question jurisdiction, as plaintiff's four claims

arise out of state law and do not present any federal question. See 28 U.S.C. 1331.

§

Similarly, the complaint fails to allege any plausible basis for concluding that diversity

jurisdiction exists. See Id § 1332. Section 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship among

the adverse parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.00. See Id Yet, the

allegations regarding the amount in controversy need not be taken at face value where, as here, it

is apparent that they were not made in good faith. See, e.g., St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red

Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-89 (1938) (requiring the allegation regarding the amount in

'Rule 12(h)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks

subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action."

2

Case 1:17-cv-00774-TSE-TCB Document 4 Filed 07/18/17 Page 3 of 5 Page ID# 175

controversy be made in good faith and providing that a claim may be dismissed if it appears "to a

legal certainty that the claim is really less than the jurisdictional amount"); Wiggins p. N. Am.

Equitable Life Assurance Co., 644 F.2d 1014, 1016-17 (4th Cir. 1981) (stating that the

jurisdictional amount must be alleged in good faith). Furthermore, it is important to note that

Virginia law "imposes a heavy burden on a plaintiff seeking punitive damages." Blakely v.

Austin-Weston Or. for Cosmetic Surgery, LLC., 348 F. Supp. 2d 673, 677 (E.D. Va. 2004)

(quotation marks omitted). Indeed, in Virginia, the standard for establishing punitive damages is

beyond even gross negligence. See Id; Doe v. Isaacs, 265 Va. 531(2003). Rather, punitive

damages are appropriate where the defendant engaged in conduct that "either approaches actual

malice or exhibits extreme recklessness resulting in clearly foreseeable and immediate injury."

Cummings v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 857 F. Supp. 502,505 (W.D. Va. 1994) (collecting cases). This

is so because the primary purpose of punitive damages is to "punish the wrongdoer if he has

acted wantonly, oppressively, or with such malice as to evince a spirit of malice or criminal

indifference to civil obligations," as "[w]illful or wanton conduct imports knowledge and

consciousness that injwy will result from the act done." Wallen v. Allen, 231 Va. 289, 297

(1986) (quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original).

These principles, applied here, compel the conclusion that there is no diversity

jurisdiction over this case. The complaint is not only devoid of any allegation regarding diversity

of citizenship, but it is also fatally lacking with respect to the amount-in-controversy

requirement. In this regard, the complaint catalogues plaintiff's actual damages and alleges a

grand total of $36,701.67 in compensatory damages—well below the $75,000 threshold. And the

claim of $50,000,000 in punitive damages—$10,000,000 for each count, plus another

3

Case 1:17-cv-00774-TSE-TCB Document 4 Filed 07/18/17 Page 4 of 5 PagelD# 176

$10,000,000 "as a Prima Facie Case and/or whatever else the Court deem [sic] appropriate"2—is

utterly frivolous and cannot be viewed as a good faith allegation. To begin with, Virginia law

limits the recovery of punitive damages in "any action accruing on or after July 1, 1988" to

$350,000. Va. Code § 8.01-38.1. More flindanientally, plaintiff's damages claim does not

plausibly allege that defendants "acted wantonly, oppressively, or with such malice as to evince a

spirit of malice or criminal indifference to civil obligations." Wallen, 231 Va. at 297. Rather, the

complaint on its face appears to recognize that defendants do not wish to enter contracts with

plaintiff because she keeps suing them. See Compi. at 8, 35. The remaining allegations comprise

bizarre accusations, including claims that defendants stole her library card and attempted to kill

her. In this context, it is evident that plaintiff has alleged punitive damages in bad faith. Indeed,

this finding of plaintiff's bad faith is bolstered by the fact that she is a serial filer in this district

who routinely seeks similarly outlandish punitive damages awards.4

2 Compl. at 41.

3 1t is also worth noting that, in Virginia, a party may not recover punitive damages

on a breach

of contract claim unless that party alleges an independent, willful tort; in other words, the breach

of contract must also be an independent, willful tort arising from a common law duty. See Dunn

Construction Co., Inc. v. Cloney, 278 Va. 260, 266-67 (2009); Kamlar Corp. v. Haley, 224 Va.

669 (1983).

4 Plaintiff has been placed under several pre-filing injunctions in this district, alone. See, e.g.,

Adldns Y. Fairfax Cnty. Sck Bd, No. 1:09-mc-27 (E.D. Va. June 11, 2009) (denying plaintiff

leave to file a seventh lawsuit against the Fairfax County School Board). She has also filed

meritless claims seeking: (1) four million dollars in punitive damages against a storage company

for allegedly spraying plaintiff's storage unit with an unknown chemical in an effort to injure or

kill her, see Case No. 1:16-cv-1556; (2) five million dollars in punitive damages against a bank

for foreclosing on plaintiff's property, see Case No. 1:I4-cv-563; and (3) eight hundred million

dollars in punitive damages against Whole Foods, stemming from plaintiff's alleged death and

resurrection caused by food poisoning, see Case No. 1:16-cv-31. In short, plaintiffs lack of good

faith is clear; thus, she will not be permitted to circumvent constitutional and statutory limits on a

federal court's jurisdiction by asserting absurd amounts of punitive damages.

4

Case 1:17-cv-00774-TSE-TCB Document 4 Filed 07/18/17 Page 5 of 5 Page ID# 177

In short, it is apparent torn the hoc of the complaint that this action satisfies neither of §

1332's requirements for subject matter jurisdiction. The matter most thus be dismissed without

prejudice. See £ Walk at Broadlwrdi Homeowner Ass',i 1nc Y. OpenBand at aroadlwrdr, LW.

713 F.M 175, 185 (4th dr. 2013) ("A dismissal for

jurisdiction

...

...

any

...

defect in subject matter

must be one without prejudiec, because a court that lacks jurisdiction has no

power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on the merits.

Accordingly, and for good cause,

It is hereby ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff is reminded that the filing of frivolous pleadings could result in the issuance of

an Order (1) imposing sigmflcant monetary sanctions and (2) eijoining plaintiff from filing

additional pleadings. See Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P. (providing that a party may be sanctioned if a

party's claims are frivolous); Cromer v. Kraft Foods NA., 1,, 390 F.3d $12 (4th Cir. 2004)

(discussing the standards governing prefihing injunctions).

Should plaintiff wish to appeal, she must do so by filing a written notice of appeal with

the Clerk's Office within thirty (30) days of the entty dale of Ibis Order, pursuant to Rules 3 and

4, Fed. It App. P. A written notice of appeal is a short statement that indicates a desire to appeal

and notes the date of the Order plaintiff wants to appeal. Plaintiff aced not explain the rounds

for appeal untilsodütctcdby the court

Th. Clerk Is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of reGotd and to plaintiff,

and to close this civil aciton.

I.

Alexandria, Virginia

July 19, 2017

1&Fflim

United Ste

rJudge

Case 1:17-cv-00774-TSE-TCB Document 7 Filed 07/25/17 Page 1 of 3 PagelD# 296

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

DORA L ADKINS,

Plaintiff,

V.

IiBL,LLCefaL,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:17-cv-774

ORDER

The matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended

complaint (Doc. 5) alleging common law claims of conspiracy, breach of contract, gross

negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against an insurance company and

several Mercedes Benz dealerships.

On July 18, 2017, an Order issued, dismissing this action without prejudice for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. See Adkins v. HBL, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-774 (E.D. Va. July 18, 2017).

The matter was dismissed because it was apparent that the complaint lacked any basis for federal

question or diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332. Indeed, the initial complaint

alleged no federal claims, and the amount in controversy totaled less than $40,000 in actual

damages. Notably, plaintiff, in her original complaint, attempted to circumvent the requirements

of federal subject matter jurisdiction by alleging an astronomical, absurd amount of punitive

damages-50 million dollars.'

A week later, on July 24, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint.

In support of the motion, plaintiff asserts that she has included a section in the amended

'The July 18, 2017 Order recounts the complaint's factual allegations, the grounds for dismissal,

and a number of plaintiff's prior meritless lawsuits filed in this district.

Case 1:17-cv-00774-TSE-TCB Document 7 Filed 07/25/17 Page 2 of 3 PagelD# 297

complaint addressing diversity of citizenship and additional facts to support her claim for

punitive damages. To be sure, Rule 15(a)(1)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that "[a] party may

amend its pleading as a matter of course within

...

21 days of serving it[.]" Thus, plaintiff's

amended complaint will be deemed properly filed and the motion for leave will be denied as

moot.

Yet, a review of the amended complaint reveals that there is still no subject matter

jurisdiction here, because plaintiff has not alleged a sufficient amount in controversy in good

faith. See, e.g., Brickwood Contractors Inc. v. Datanet Eng'g, Inc., 369 F.3d 385, 390 (4th Cir.

2004) (en banc) (holding that courts must raise issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponle);

St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-89 (1938) (requiring the

allegation regarding the amount in controversy be made in good faith and providing that a claim

may be dismissed if it appears "to a legal certainty that the claim is really less than the

jurisdictional amount"). In this respect, plaintiff has essentially repeated the same allegations that

have already been rejected as having been made in bad faith. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that

despite the fact that her actual damages do not surpass $40,000, a historic punitive damages

award of $50,000,0002 is warranted because defendants allegedly (1) failed to wash plaintiffs

car properly, (2) stole her library card and $2,000 in jewelry, and (3) refused to do business with

her plaintiff, a serial filer in this district, keeps suing each service station she visits. In short, it is

undeniable that plaintiffs continued attempt to manufacture an amount in controversy sufficient

to confer subject matter jurisdiction in this matter is, once again, frivolous and made in bad faith.

Simply put, a bad faith allegation of punitive damages will not rescue a claim that otherwise fails

to meet the jurisdictional amount-in-controversy requirement.

2

See

Va. Code § 8.01-38.1 (limiting punitive damages awards to $350,000).

2

Case 1:17-cv-00774-TSE-TCB Document 7 Filed 07/25/17 Page 3 of 3 PagelD# 298

Accordingly, and for good cause.

It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is

DENIED AS MOOT in light of Rule 15(a)(1XA), Fed. 0.. Civ, P.

It is further ORDERED thet the annendrd complaint is DISMISSED V4TUOVT

PREJUDICE for lack of subject u,iterjnisdiction.

It is fuather ORDERED that the hearing scheduled for August 4, 2017 is CANCELED.

The dismissal of this action without prejudice is not an invitation to file a second

amended complaint. Plaintiff is admonished that a federal district court is not a venue in which to

Me frivolous claims. Any fwtber frivolous pleadings in this manPr will result in the issuance of

an Order requiring plaintiff to show cause why sigiificant monetary sanctions and a prefiling

injunction should not be imposed.

Should plaintiff wish to appeal, she must do so by fifing a written notice of appeal with

the Clerk's Office within thirty (30) days of the entry data of this Order, pursuant to Rules 3 and

4, Fed. R. App. P. A written notice of appeal is a short statement that indicates a desire to appeal

and notes the dare of the Order plaintiff wants to appeal. Plaintiff need not explain the grounds

for apal until ao directed by the court.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of ibis Order to all counsel of record and to plaintiff;

and to close this civil action.

Alexandria, Virginia

July 25, 2017

T.S.Elliclfl 7./

United Stetes DWd Judge

3

Case 1:17-cv-00774-TSE-TCB Document 10 Filed 08/01/17 Page 1 of 2 PagelD# 511

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

DORA L ADKINS,

Plaintiff,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

V.

}IBL,LLCetaL,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-774

ORDER

The prose plaintiff's first two complaints in this diversity action were dismissed for want

of subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, plaintiff's claims fell far short of satisfying the

amount-in-controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as plaintiff alleged less than $40,000 in

damages and made outlandish, bad faith allegations that she is entitled to $50,000,000 in punitive

damages. Now, plaintiff purports to file a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") as a "matter of

course," presumably pursuant to Rule 15(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. But because Rule 15 permits

amendment as a matter of course only "once," and because plaintiff has already availed herself

of that Rule, plaintiff must obtain leave to file the SAC. See Rule I 5(a)( I )-(2). Plaintiff's

purported filing of the SAC is therefore charitably construed as a motion for leave to amend her

previous frivolous complaint. It is apparent, however, that amendment is futile, as the SAC still

fails to allege in good faith sufficient factual matter to satisfy the amount-in-controversy

threshold. See United States v. Pittman, 209 F.3d 314, 317 (4th Cir. 2000) ("(Lleave to amend

shall be given freely, absent

...

futility of amendment."); 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (requiring amount in

controversy to exceed $75,000). Indeed, plaintiffs allegations in the SAC are essentially

identical to those in her previous complaints. Thus, for the reasons already stated in the previous

Orders in this matter, it is apparent that the SAC lacks sufficient allegations to confer subject

matter jurisdiction. See Docs. 4 & 7.

Case 1:17-cv-00774-TSE-TCB

Document 10 Filed 08/01/17

Page 2 of 2 PagelD# 512

Accordingly, and for good

It is fiuther ORDERED that pla

imifl's motion to amend is DENIE

D AS FUTILE.

PLaintiff is admonished that her rem

edy is to appeal or file her claims in

another amended complaint in this

sate court not to 61e

district Plaintiff is further warned tha

t any fwlher flivolots

pleadinp in this matter will result in lbs

issu

ance of an Order requiring plaintiff

why significant monetary sanctio

ns

and a pitfiling injunction should not

to show cause

be imposedL See Rule

11,Fed.LEiv.P.'

Should plaintiff wish to appeal

, she must do so by filing a written

the Clerk's Othec within thirty (30) day

notice of appeal with

s of the envy dare of this Order, pur

4, Fed. R.App. P. A written notice

szn to Rules 3 and

of appeal is a short sent that indica

tes a desire to appeal

and notes the dare of the Order plainti

ff wants to appeal. Plaintiff need not

for appeal until so directed by the cou

explain the pounds

rt

The Clerk is directed to send a cop

y of this Order to all counsel of record

and to close this civil action.

and to plaintiff,

Alan&ia, Vupnia

August 12017

tS.Ellis,IIX

'

United Stales Di%txict Judge

'Plaintiff has already been warned

in conodon with her fibW in this that she may be subject to saous and a pt5liag injuon

ease. Yet, it is anelear whether pla

the previous order thcnissing her

intiff received notice of

wnrndcd complaint before plaintiff file

d the SAC.

2

Case 1:17-cv-00774-TS

E-TCB Document 11 Fil

ed 08

/02/17 Page 1 of 1 PagelD#

513

IN TM UNITED STATES DI

RICT COURT

FOR TIM EASTERN DISTRICST

T OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

DORA L. ADKINS.

)

)

)

)

)

V.

SRL,LLCEIgL,

Dafesidants.

can No. 1:17-cv-774

The pro se plaintiff has filed a "Requ

est For Leave From Court For P1ain

For Envy of Deult" (Dec. 9)

penwtted t amd her complaint, the

lifi1s Request

. Bu this matter has been dimiss

ed and plaintiff is not

instant Rèquest For Leave" will be

Accordutgly. and lbr good'

It is hereby ORDERED that pla

deaied as moot'

intifs request (Mc. 9) is DENIED

The Clerk is deetAi to sand a copy

Sr plaintiff:

AS MOOT

of this Order to all couisel Of record

end to the po

Alexacdria, Vuginia

August2,2017

T.SEuis,W V/4_'

United States l)fr1Ct Judge

1,Evm if thue were a live

case or con

frivolous. Indeed, plaintiff's reques troversy bare, plaintiffs request woWd still be dazied as

Civ. P. and the effect of the di- t reflects a fundanieo1 m dcrstanding of Rule SS, Fed. R.

the 1ponsa deedlins impoaeden-"al of a complaint—and the f11ng of amended pinp—on

idafendant.

2 0n A*gust 1, 20

17, an0tder iss

Complaint See Dec. 10. That Or ued, deIyiAg plaintiff lcav to file a Second Amended

resUlt in the imposition of sanctioder wzed plaintiff that any further frivolous filicgs would

plaintiff flied the instant request bef ns and a puffing inj*mction. Yet, beuse it appens that

ore that Order issued, plaintiff will

instant request

not be sanctioned for the

Case 1:17cv-00774-TSE-T

CB Document 14 Filed 08

/11117 Page 3 of 3 Page

lDfi-521

removed lh,m state court). Bec

ause plaintiff's complaints were dis

missed without prejudice,

however, them isno bar toh

cr

defendants. This federal case,

this matter, with the exception

filing anow action in state court to

press her claims against

however, is over: PlaintifFi

nust not file any further pleadings in

of a notice of appeal should

she wish to pursue an appeal.

Accordingly, and for good cause,

It is hereby ORDERED that plaint

ifi's Motion for Leave from Court

Removal of Comp) slat to Fairfax

County Circuit Court (Doe. 12) is

PlaintiCfis reminded that the filing of

DENIED.

frivolous pleadings could result

an Order (I) imposing significan

for Motion for the

in the issuance of

t monetary sanctions and (2) enjoin

ing plaintiff from filing

additional pleadings. Sec Rule 11,

Fed

. R. Civ. P. (providing that a party ma

y be sanctioned if a

party's claims ate frivolous); Cra

mer v Kraft Foods N.4., Inc., 390 F.3

(discussing the standards governing

d S 12 (4th Cu. 2004)

preffling injunctions).

Should plaintiff wish to appeal, she

must do so by filing a written notice

the Clerk's Office within thirty (30

) days of the entry date of this Or

4, Fed. R. App. P. A written

der, pursuant to Rules 3 and

notice of appeal is a short statement

and notes the date of the Order

for appeal until so directed

of appeal with

plaintiff wants to appeal. Plaintiff

that indicates a desire to appeal

need not explain the grounds

by the court.

The Cleric is directed to send a cop

y of this Order to all counsel of rec

ord and to plaintiff.

AJeandria, Virginia

August 11, 2017

T.S.Ellis,W r1

United States Di$trict Iudge

3

-