Stratton v. Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services , 521 F. App'x 278 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No.   11-2131
    SOLOMON STRATTON,
    Plaintiff – Appellant,
    v.
    MECKLENBURG COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; US
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES; UNITED WAY OF
    CENTRAL CAROLINAS; FOUNDATION FOR THE CAROLINAS; COUNCIL
    FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS; BRETT LOFTIS; MARTHA CURREN; DAVID
    CAYER;   YVONNE   MIMS-EVANS;   ELIZABETH  MILLER-KILLEGREW;
    MARGARET SHARPE; SIDNEY EAGLES; JOHN MARTIN; MARTHA GEER;
    PATRICIA   TIMMONS-GOODSEN;   MECKLENBURG  COUNTY;   RICHARD
    JACOBSEN; TYRONE WADE; TWYLA HOLLINGSWORTH; DONNA FAYKO;
    GRETCHEN CALDWELL; SHERRI GLENN; DAVID FEE; LISA LOOBY;
    SUSAN MILLER; KATHERINE DORMINEY; ROBERT ADDEN; RICHARD
    LUCY; MICHAEL SCHMIDT; CAROLINAS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM,
    Defendants – Appellees.
    -------------------------------------
    PETER BOWMAN RUTLEDGE,
    Court-Assigned Amicus Counsel.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.   David C. Norton,
    District Judge. (3:10-cv-00137-DCN-KM)
    Argued:   March 22, 2013                     Decided:   May 31, 2013
    Before KING, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.   Judge Gregory wrote
    a separate concurring opinion.
    ARGUED:    Lucas D. Bradley, UGA APPELLATE LITIGATION CLINIC,
    Athens, Georgia, for Court-Assigned Amicus Counsel.         Robert
    Evans Harrington, ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, PA, Charlotte,
    North Carolina; Robert S. Adden, Jr., Charlotte, North Carolina,
    for Appellees.     ON BRIEF: Peter B. Rutledge, Matthew V.H.
    Noller, UGA APPELLATE LITIGATION CLINIC, Athens, Georgia, for
    Court-Assigned Amicus Counsel. Sinead Noelle O’Doherty, Adam K.
    Doerr, ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, PA, Charlotte, North
    Carolina, for Appellees Council for Children's Rights and Brett
    Loftis; Michael Gray Gibson, DEAN & GIBSON, LLP, Charlotte,
    North Carolina, for Appellee United Way of Central Carolinas.
    Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, NORTH
    CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellees Martha    Curren,   David  Cayer,   Yvonne   Mims-Evans,
    Elizabeth Miller-Killegrew, Margaret Sharpe, Sidney Eagles, John
    Martin, Martha Geer, and Patricia Timmons-Goodsen.         Charles
    Evans Johnson, ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, PA, Charlotte, North
    Carolina, for Appellee Carolinas Healthcare System.          Kelly
    Suzanne Hughes, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC,
    Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee Foundation for the
    Carolinas; Cynthia L. Van Horne, POYNER SPRUILL LLP, Charlotte,
    North Carolina, for Appellee Michael Schmidt; Richard Lucey,
    Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee Richard Lucey.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Solomon Stratton appeals from the district court’s Order of
    September 16, 2011, which adopted the report and recommendations
    of a magistrate judge and dismissed the operative complaint in
    this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to
    Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
    Rooker-Feldman     doctrine.        See       Stratton       v.    Mecklenburg    Cnty.
    Dep’t of Soc. Svcs., 3:10-cv-00137 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 16, 2011),
    ECF   No.   115   (the     “Order”). 1        The    complaint       alleges     that   a
    centuries-old     international      child          trafficking      enterprise     had
    orchestrated and caused the termination, by the state courts of
    North     Carolina,   of    the   parental          rights    of    Jack   and    Kathy
    Stratton (sometimes referred to as the “Strattons”) with respect
    to nine of their children.           The complaint alleges eight claims
    involving a total of thirty defendants, including governmental
    entities, charitable organizations, and various judges and other
    individuals.      As explained below, we are satisfied to affirm the
    dismissal by the district court, relying on the Rooker-Feldman
    and substantiality doctrines.
    1
    The district court’s unpublished Order is found at J.A.
    475-76. (Citations herein to “J.A. ____” refer to the contents
    of the Joint Appendix filed by the parties in this appeal.)
    3
    I.
    A.
    On March 22, 2010, Solomon Stratton and his father, Jack
    Stratton, filed their pro se complaint in the Western District
    of North Carolina.           Six months later, on September 24, 2010,
    they filed an amended pro se complaint, which constitutes the
    operative complaint in this appeal (the “Complaint”). 2                Although
    the       plaintiffs     initially   sued      only       one   defendant,   the
    Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services (the “County
    DSS”),     the   Complaint   names   twenty-nine      additional     defendants,
    including        three   governmental       entities, 3    several    charitable
    organizations, 4 and more than twenty individuals, eight of them
    North Carolina judges. 5
    2
    The Complaint is found at J.A. 96-159.
    3
    The governmental defendants include the United States
    Department of Health and Human Resources, North Carolina’s
    Mecklenburg County, and the County DSS (named only in the
    initial pro se complaint).    Although the County DSS was not
    specifically named as a defendant in the Complaint, it has been
    treated as a party defendant in the district court and
    throughout these proceedings.
    4
    The charitable defendants are the United Way of Central
    Carolinas, the Foundation for the Carolinas, the Council for
    Children’s Rights, and the Carolinas Healthcare System.
    5
    The individual defendants include Brett Loftis, Director
    of the Council for Children’s Rights; Martha Curran, a court
    clerk in Mecklenburg County; David Cayer, formerly a state judge
    and now a federal magistrate judge; Yvonne Mims-Evans, a state
    judge;   Elizabeth  Miller-Kelligrew,  a  former   state  judge;
    Margaret Sharpe, a former state judge; Sidney Eagles, a former
    (Continued)
    4
    The various claims generally stem from the state courts’
    termination of the parental rights of Jack and Kathy Stratton
    with regard to nine of their ten children, including plaintiff
    Solomon Stratton.            The Complaint consists of sixty-four pages
    and more than 400 paragraphs.                Its extensive allegations relate,
    inter alia, to the seizure in 2001 of the Stratton children by
    the   County     DSS,    the      termination       of    the    Strattons’          parental
    rights    by    the    North      Carolina       courts,       and    the     court-ordered
    placement of their children into foster care.                           For example, the
    Complaint alleges that the “[p]laintiffs and their family are
    victims    of     an     Enterprise      engaged          in     international         child
    trafficking [that] seizes children for purposes of pedophilia
    and   human     child    sacrifice.”             Complaint       ¶ 443.         It    further
    alleges that these occurrences were part of what it denominates
    an    “International           Luciferian         Child        Trafficking           Criminal
    Enterprise.”           Id.   at    5.        This    enterprise          is    part    of   a
    “Rothschild-Rockefeller-Illuminati-Federal                           Reserve-New       World
    state judge; John Martin, a state judge; Martha Geer, a state
    judge; Patricia Timmons-Goodsen, a former state judge; Richard
    Jacobsen, former County DSS director; Tyrone Wade, deputy
    Mecklenburg County attorney; Twyla Hollingsworth, County DSS
    attorney; County DSS supervisors Donna Fayko, Gretchen Caldwell,
    Sherri Glenn, David Fee, and Lisa Looby; County DSS social
    worker Susan Miller; former County DSS supervisor Katherine
    Dorminey; County DSS attorney Robert Adden; attorney Richard
    Lucey; and attorney Michael Schmidt.
    5
    Order    conspiracy”       that   began       with    the     establishment          of   the
    Rothschild banking empire in 1744 in Frankfurt, Germany.                                   Id.
    ¶ 359.       Through    the   “Rothschild           control       of   the    issuance     of
    money,”      the    Rothschilds       and     the     Illuminati         were    able      to
    “systematically        take    over     and        control     the      governments        of
    Europe.”       Id. ¶ 51.      These conspirators thereafter successfully
    obtained control of the government of the United States, through
    the establishment of the Federal Reserve system, and they now
    control “every major business corporation,” as well as “[e]very
    government on earth.”         Id. ¶¶ 73, 74.
    As a result of the foregoing, the Complaint explains, our
    entire planet is “now operating under a Luciferian (Satanic)
    shadow world government.”               Complaint ¶ 74.                In addition, the
    Complaint       contends      that     “an        international          Satanic      child
    trafficking         conspiracy       operates         within       ‘child       protective
    services’ and the CIA,” with “a CIA covert child trafficking
    operation”      providing     children        “used    by    Satan      worshippers        for
    human sacrifices.”         Id. ¶¶ 101, 107.            The Complaint continues in
    that    same   vein,    alleging       that       “there    are    approximately          four
    million practicing Satan worshippers across the United States,
    many    of   them    operating    at    the       highest     levels     of    the   United
    States government.”           Id. ¶ 102.            In addition, “pedophile sex
    orgies with high ranking federal officials” occur at the White
    House and at the “Bohemian Grove,” where, for more than 120
    6
    years,       “world     leaders     have . . . participate[d]       in     bizarre
    Satanic rituals.”         Id. ¶¶ 104, 109-10.
    The Luciferian conspiracy allegations of the Complaint are
    interwoven       into     various     descriptions    of     the   state     court
    proceedings concerning the Strattons that occurred more than ten
    years ago in North Carolina.              According to the Complaint, the
    conspiracy procured the seizure of the Stratton children through
    the fabrication of various court documents, in order to obtain
    jurisdiction over the Stratton family and its members outside of
    their county of residence.             It is alleged that, following the
    removal and detention of their children, the Strattons were not
    afforded the notices and hearings mandated under North Carolina
    law. 6       The Complaint also alleges that the defendants’ actions
    were motivated in part by the Strattons being Christians and
    their children biracial.             It then alleges that, while in the
    custody of the County DSS, plaintiff Solomon Stratton was forced
    to   attend     public    school     against   his   will,   and   that    he   was
    6
    The Juvenile Code of North Carolina is codified at Chapter
    7B of the North Carolina General Statutes. Subchapter I thereof
    establishes procedures for the processing in the state courts of
    juvenile cases involving abuse, neglect, and dependency.      See
    N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-100 to 1414.     Those procedures include,
    inter alia, the appointment of counsel for indigent parents, the
    appointment of guardians ad litem to represent juveniles, and
    the conduct of various judicial proceedings to assess and
    determine the need for custody by the state. See id. §§ 7B-506,
    601, 602.
    7
    subjected   to   medical      procedures   to   which   neither   he   nor   his
    parents consented.
    On   the    basis   of   its   extensive    factual   allegations,      the
    Complaint identifies eight causes of action:
    Claim I (
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    ):    The defendants conspired
    to violate the plaintiffs’ rights under multiple
    amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
    Claim II (
    42 U.S.C. § 1985
    ):           The defendants,
    motivated by race, religion, and sex, conspired to
    violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
    Claim III (
    18 U.S.C. § 1964
    ):         The defendants
    conspired,   in   furtherance of  the   international
    criminal enterprise, to commit, inter alia, child
    kidnapping, child torture, ritualistic child sexual
    molestation, drugging of children, and human child
    Satanic sacrifices.
    Claim IV (
    18 U.S.C. § 1595
    ):    The defendants violated
    the Thirteenth Amendment by forcing Solomon and his
    siblings into slavery and involuntary servitude.
    Claim V (42 U.S.C. § 2000d): The defendants violated
    Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    Claim VI (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1):     The Department of
    Health and Human Services of the United States (the
    “DHHS”)   violated   the   plaintiffs’   rights  under
    Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
    Claim VII (assault and battery):       The defendants,
    except defendant Schmidt, committed the state law tort
    of assault and battery by kidnapping Solomon and
    subjecting him to medical examinations without his
    consent or the consent of his parents.
    Claim VIII (legal malpractice): Defendant Schmidt, an
    attorney, committed legal malpractice against Jack
    Stratton by refusing to turn over his Stratton case
    file.
    8
    For relief, the Complaint seeks a declaration from the federal
    district court that “all orders and judgments used to kidnap and
    hold [the Stratton children] are void and vacated,” plus damages
    in excess of two and one-half billion dollars.                   Complaint 63.
    B.
    1.
    On December 18, 2000, the County DSS received a report that
    the   children       of   Jack   and    Kathy        Stratton,   one    of   whom     was
    plaintiff Solomon Stratton, were living in a home in Charlotte,
    Mecklenburg        County,   North     Carolina,       with   inadequate       heat   and
    food. 7        The   following       day,       several     County     DSS   employees
    approached the Stratton home, where they observed the children.
    Later on December 19, 2000, the Strattons and their children
    moved       from   Mecklenburg   County         to   neighboring      Gaston    County.
    When the County DSS employees returned to the Stratton home in
    Charlotte on December 20, 2000, they found it empty, and they
    inquired about the family’s absence from Jack Stratton’s mother,
    Joan Stratton, who lived next door.                    Joan, however, “refus[ed]
    to provide the . . . whereabouts of the father and family or
    where she believe[d] they might be.”                      J.A. 200.     As a result,
    7
    Our recitation of the pertinent facts is drawn primarily
    from the pleadings, the exhibits thereto, and various state and
    federal court records.      The North Carolina court records
    referred to herein are judicially noticed and accepted as
    accurate and factual.
    9
    the County DSS filed a petition in the state district court in
    Mecklenburg       County    on   December        21,     2000,     alleging       that   Joan
    Stratton was “interfering with [the County DSS’s] ability to
    investigate to determine the juveniles’ condition,” and seeking
    an order prohibiting further interference by her.                         Id. 8
    A summons was promptly issued by the state district court
    directing Joan Stratton to appear the following day, December
    22,   2000,    in    Charlotte,       where       a    hearing      was       conducted     by
    defendant Cayer (then a North Carolina judge) on the petition. 9
    Defendants Wade, Caldwell, Dorminey, and Fayko, as officials of
    the   County      DSS,   were      present    on       its    behalf,     and     defendant
    Caldwell presented          evidence    in       support      of   the    petition.         On
    January     26,     2001,    the    state        court       entered     an    order      (the
    “Juvenile Order”) containing findings regarding the conditions
    of the Stratton home, the welfare of the Stratton children, and
    the obstructive conduct of Joan Stratton. 10                        More specifically,
    the state court found that “none of the nine children had coats
    and [they] appeared very dirty and unkempt.”                         Juvenile Order 2.
    8
    The Mecklenburg County District Court is comprised of
    various divisions, including a Juvenile Court Division.    For
    ease of reference, we use the term “state district court” when
    referring to proceedings therein.
    9
    Judge Cayer served several years as a North Carolina
    judge, and in 2009 was appointed as a United States magistrate
    judge.
    10
    The Juvenile Order is found at J.A. 206-10.
    10
    One of the children “appeared to be blind or visually impaired,
    [and] was leaning on his mother and appeared to need assistance
    with walking due to some physical limitation or disability.”
    Id.
    In the kitchen of the Strattons’ Charlotte home, according
    to    the   Juvenile       Order,    the   County        DSS   employees     observed    “a
    large hole in the center of the ceiling with a large plastic
    barrel collecting water that was dripping from the ceiling.”
    Juvenile Order 2.               There was no food in the home other than a
    small amount “of ground beef and Kool-Aid.”                         Id.     In addition,
    “[t]he bedroom had no furniture at all other than some form of
    foam mat on the floor.”             Id. at 3.        Although Kathy Stratton told
    the County DSS officials that “the children were being home-
    schooled,” the officials observed “no books, pens, tablets, or
    anything     that       would    suggest    any    form    of    education     was   being
    provided in the home.”               Id.     Furthermore, “at least one child
    appeared to have some sort of speech impediment.”                             Id.    After
    finding that the Stratton home had been vacated, and that Joan
    Stratton          “ha[d]        obstructed        and      interfered         with      the
    investigation,” the Juvenile Order concluded that the Stratton
    family      was    “fleeing       from     [the    County        DSS],”    ordered    Joan
    Stratton      to        fully    cooperate        with     its    investigation,        and
    authorized        the    County     DSS    “to    take     whatever       measures   [are]
    11
    necessary to locate the whereabouts of [the] family in order to
    ensure the needs of the juveniles are met.”                   Id. at 3-4.
    2.
    On January 30, 2001, the County DSS filed a petition in the
    state district court alleging that the ten Stratton children
    were    neglected    and    dependent.        The    neglect     petition     alleged
    that, when observed by the County DSS on December 19, 2000,
    “[t]he children were noticed to be extremely dirty, unkempt,
    [and] inappropriately dressed for the conditions.”                         J.A. 220.
    In    addition,    “[o]ne    child   appeared       to   be   blind   or    otherwise
    physically handicapped,” and another child had diabetes.                          Id.
    Regarding the Stratton home, the neglect petition recited that
    [t]he family was living in squalid conditions.    The
    home had three small rooms and a bathroom. There were
    holes in the ceiling in the kitchen and bathroom.
    There was no running water or working plumbing
    facilities, no bedding and only sparse furnishings in
    the other room. There was little to no food observed
    in the home; however, there was a large tub in the
    kitchen,   containing   floating   debris, collecting
    dripping water which appeared stagnated.
    Id.     As   for    the    children’s    education,       the    neglect     petition
    alleged that “the children have not attended school at all,” and
    that “[t]here are no records to support [that] the mother has
    been licensed to home school the children.                     In addition, there
    was nothing in the home to indicate the children were being
    educated at home.”          Id.   The neglect petition explained that the
    Stratton family had “relocated to Gaston County, but have gone
    12
    underground,” and it expressed “concerns regarding the quality
    of care the children might be receiving and the environment in
    which they might be living.”                 Id. at 221.
    Based on the conditions previously observed at the Stratton
    home in Charlotte, as spelled out in the Juvenile Order, and on
    the family’s move from Mecklenburg County to Gaston County, the
    neglect petition requested a determination by the state district
    court       of   whether     the    children       were     “in      need    of   the    care,
    protection, or discipline of the State.”                          J.A. 221.       That very
    day,    the       state     court    entered       a    custody      order    placing      the
    Stratton children in foster care, with a hearing on the neglect
    petition         to   be    held    within    seven       days. 11      Also      that    day,
    employees        of   the    County    DSS    travelled       to     neighboring        Gaston
    County and took custody of the Stratton children.
    On February 2, 2001, the state district court conducted a
    hearing on the matter, and the custody order was superseded by
    an   order       placing     the    children       in   foster       care    pending     final
    adjudication of the neglect petition.                         The foster care order
    11
    Judge Mims-Evans, a judge in Mecklenburg County, entered
    the custody order of January 30, 2001, finding that the Stratton
    children’s continuing presence in the family home was contrary
    to their welfare and best interests, explaining that “the
    juvenile[s] [are] exposed to a substantial risk of physical
    injury . . . because the parent, guardian, or custodian has
    inflicted the injury or abuse; created the conditions causing
    the injury, abuse, or exposure; failed to provide, or is unable
    to provide, adequate supervision of protection.” J.A. 212.
    13
    adopted the allegations of the neglect petition as its findings
    of fact, confirmed that Jack and Kathy Stratton were represented
    by counsel, and noted that they had consented to the continuing
    custody of their children by the State of North Carolina.                            The
    foster care order also authorized parental visitations with the
    children, directed the Strattons to cooperate with the County
    DSS, and instructed the County DSS to assist the Strattons with
    efforts to procure adequate housing.
    A    family     services      case   plan,    prepared      by   a   County   DSS
    social worker on February 16, 2001, and filed in the federal
    district court proceedings, identifies the Stratton children and
    reflects that the County DSS’s permanent plan was the Stratton
    family reunification.           Not long after the Stratton children were
    placed in foster care, however, the County DSS ascertained that
    none       of   them    had   been    properly       immunized.         Their    parents
    objected to any such immunizations on religious grounds.                              On
    July 3, 2001, the state district court ruled that it was in the
    best interests of the Stratton children to receive the necessary
    immunizations.           See In re Stratton, 
    571 S.E.2d 234
     (N.C. Ct.
    App. 2002) (“Stratton I”).
    The      Strattons     thereafter          appealed   the     state      district
    court’s immunization order and its denial of their religious
    objections       with    respect      to    immunizations.         In    its    decision
    rejecting that appeal, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina
    14
    characterized the Stratton home, prior to the children’s removal
    therefrom,   as   being   in   “severe    disrepair,”   with   the    family
    “living in squalid conditions.”         Stratton I, 
    571 S.E.2d at 235
    . 12
    More specifically, the court related that
    [i]n the kitchen, a large tub caught water dripping
    from the ceiling.       The tub of water had debris
    floating in it.      The plumbing facilities were in
    disrepair.     No   beds   or   mattresses  were   found
    throughout the home.        Only two working kerosene
    heaters were seen in the home, despite the cold
    outside temperature as evidenced by the sleet and
    freezing rain earlier that day.        The [County DSS]
    workers found almost no food in the home.       Although
    the father-appellant told the workers that mother-
    appellant had been home schooling the children, the
    workers found no records or educational materials to
    support that claim.     Appellants stated that none of
    the children had ever attended public school.
    
    Id.
       The Strattons thereafter sought further judicial review in
    the    Supreme    Court   of    North     Carolina,     but    were    again
    unsuccessful.     See In re Stratton, 
    573 S.E.2d 512
     (N.C. 2002)
    (finding no right of appeal and denying discretionary review).
    3.
    On January 31, 2002, a year after the Stratton children had
    been placed in the custody of the County DSS, the state district
    court adjudicated the children as neglected and dependent.              Jack
    Stratton then appealed that order to the court of appeals.                On
    12
    The court of appeals panel that rejected the Stratton I
    appeal was comprised of Judges Sidney Eagles, John Martin, and
    Patricia Timmons-Goodson, who are named as defendants in these
    proceedings.
    15
    October 14, 2002, while the appeal was pending, the County DSS
    filed petitions in the state district court, seeking permanent
    termination of the Strattons’ parental rights to nine of their
    children. 13   According to these petitions, the Strattons were
    unwilling to take the necessary steps to regain custody of their
    children. 14   The termination petitions alleged that the Strattons
    had repeatedly failed to comply with the court-ordered family
    reunification plan by, inter alia, failing to obtain adequate
    housing, failing to supply evidence of their employment, and
    refusing to cooperate with a court-ordered parenting capacity
    evaluation.    On June 10, 2003, the state district court granted
    each of the petitions and terminated the parental rights of Jack
    and Kathy Stratton to all their children save one.     As explained
    by the court of appeals in August 2003,
    [o]n 10 June 2003 . . . [defendant Sharpe] entered an
    order,    following  several  months   of   hearings,
    terminating the parental rights of Mr. and Mrs.
    Stratton.    Based on the evidence presented at the
    hearings, [Judge Sharpe] concluded that the Stratton
    children were neglected . . . and that [the County
    DSS] had proven by clear, cogent, and convincing
    13
    By late 2002, the eldest of the Stratton children was
    more than eighteen years old and no longer involved in the
    proceedings.
    14
    Defendants Hollingsworth and Adden are the attorney-
    signatories to the termination petitions.     Defendant Fee is a
    County DSS official who reviewed the terminations of parental
    rights petitions and verified their accuracy.
    16
    evidence   that  grounds   existed               to     terminate      the
    parental rights of the Strattons.
    In   re     Stratton,       
    583 S.E.2d 323
    ,    324    (N.C.    Ct.       App.    2003)
    (“Stratton II”).         On the basis of the terminations, the court of
    appeals dismissed as moot Jack Stratton’s appeal of the state
    district court’s neglect and dependency rulings.                       See 
    id.
     15
    At least two additional orders were thereafter entered by
    the Supreme Court of North Carolina that are pertinent to the
    termination        of   the    Strattons’    parental         rights    by    the   state
    courts.          First, on March 4, 2005, North Carolina’s high court
    reversed the denial by the court of appeals of the Strattons’
    request for an extension of time to prepare a record on appeal,
    and it remanded for entry of an order granting the extension.
    See In re I.S., 
    612 S.E.2d 128
     (N.C. 2005). 16                   Second, on May 24,
    2005,      the    Supreme     Court   of   North   Carolina       entered      an    order
    denying Jack Stratton’s petition for extraordinary relief, by
    15
    The Stratton II opinion reflects that Jack Stratton was
    then represented by defendant Schmidt, and that the court of
    appeals panel was comprised of defendants Geer, Eagles, and
    Martin.
    16
    The March 4, 2005 Order of the Supreme Court of North
    Carolina reflects that Jack Stratton was proceeding pro se,
    defendant Wade represented the County DSS, defendant Lucey
    represented the guardian ad litem, and defendant Loftis
    represented the Council for Children.  In sum, it appears that
    the named defendants include the judges who have so far ruled
    against the Strattons, as well as most of the lawyers who
    represented parties adverse to them.
    17
    which        he   unsuccessfully      sought      various     writs,   including
    mandamus, prohibition, supersedeas, and a stay of judgment.                      See
    In re I.S., 
    615 S.E.2d 293
     (N.C. 2005).               Since 2005, there have
    been no judicial proceedings conducted in the state courts of
    North Carolina with respect to the Strattons and their children.
    And there were no efforts made by the Strattons to secure relief
    in the Supreme Court of the United States.                  The proceedings at
    bar were not commenced until 2010. 17
    C.
    On October 4, 2010, ten days after the Strattons filed the
    Complaint, the case was assigned to a judge in the District of
    South        Carolina,   with   the     related     motions      referred   to    a
    magistrate judge of that district.                 Jack and Solomon Stratton
    thereafter        unsuccessfully      sought   recusal      of   the   magistrate
    17
    This litigation is not Jack Stratton’s first venture into
    federal court. On October 2, 2002, he filed a federal complaint
    seeking injunctive relief from an order entered in the child
    custody proceedings in state district court. That complaint was
    dismissed on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.        See Stratton v.
    Miller,   3:02-cv-00420  (W.D.N.C.   2002).     Additionally,  on
    December 6, 2002, two weeks after the Supreme Court of North
    Carolina rejected the Strattons’ challenge to the court-ordered
    immunizations of their children, Jack Stratton filed a pro se
    complaint in the Western District of North Carolina seeking
    relief against the immunizations. It was dismissed for failure
    to prosecute.   See Stratton v. Mecklenburg Cnty. Dep’t of Soc.
    Svcs., 3:02-cv-00510 (W.D.N.C. 2002).
    18
    judge.     For reasons of judicial efficiency, however, a second
    magistrate judge was thereafter assigned to the case.
    On August 5, 2011, the magistrate judge filed his report in
    the matter, recommending dismissal of the Complaint for lack of
    subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the
    Federal     Rules    of   Civil   Procedure     and   the     Rooker-Feldman
    doctrine,    and    further    recommending    that   all     other   pending
    motions be denied as moot (the “Report”). 18               In explaining its
    recommendation concerning the various Claims in the Complaint,
    the Report concluded that
    [t]he plaintiffs’ allegations of conspiracy, criminal
    RICO child trafficking, religious and racial genocide,
    assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional
    distress,   malice,   constitutional  violations,  and
    statutory violations are all allegations that could
    and should have been raised in the state court
    proceedings, which were concluded over six years prior
    to the filing of this action.
    Report 5.
    Jack    and    Solomon   Stratton    responded   to    the   Report   with
    timely objections.        Their objections, however, did not dispute
    the merits of the Report’s recommendation that the Complaint
    should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) and the Rooker-Feldman
    doctrine, but instead asserted that the Report was “a complete
    fraud,” and was “VOID, criminally fraudulent, and generated for
    18
    The Report is found at J.A. 367-74.
    19
    the express purpose of obstructing justice.”              J.A. 278.       Their
    objections to the Report further asserted that
    Jack and Kathy Stratton and their ten children were
    never parties in any North Carolina juvenile court
    proceedings and Jack and Kathy Stratton’s parental
    rights were never terminated.         Jack and Kathy
    Stratton’s minor children were never placed in foster
    care. [The magistrate judge’s] action constitute[s] an
    abuse of discretion and judicial conspiracy.
    
    Id. at 381
    .    Jack Stratton, for himself only, then filed various
    motions in the federal district court seeking, inter alia, the
    magistrate    judge’s   “Immediate      Removal    From   the   Bench,”      and
    requesting “Judicial Notice re Void ‘Juvenile Proceedings’ and
    ‘Appellate Decisions.’”      J.A. 14.
    The   objections   to   the   Report   were    rejected    by   Order    of
    September 16, 2011, when the district court adopted the Report
    and dismissed the Complaint. 19         The other pending motions were
    19
    The Report and Order relied on, inter alia, the following
    authorities:   Berry v. South Carolina Dep’t of Soc. Svcs., 
    121 F.3d 697
     (4th Cir. 1997) (unpublished table decision) (affirming
    dismissal of parent’s complaint challenging actions against him
    for child abuse); Salvetti v. Georgia Bar Ass’n, 
    2007 WL 433390
    ,
    at *1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 2007) (dismissing complaint challenging
    “various custody actions throughout the past ten years in the
    state courts of Georgia” on the basis of, inter alia, the
    Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Burdick v. Pritchett & Burch, PLLC,
    
    2008 WL 7542377
     (E.D.N.C. Nov. 16, 2008) (dismissing, based on
    the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, complaint alleging that plaintiff’s
    former spouse’s lawyers and state court judges had manipulated
    the legal system); Barbeau v. Gen. Ct. of Justice, 
    2010 WL 2812695
     (E.D.N.C. June 15, 2010) (recommending dismissal, based
    on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, of complaint asserting “that
    parental custody of [plaintiff’s] son and his visitation rights
    were determined by the state courts in a manner that resulted in
    (Continued)
    20
    not resolved by the district court, but were rendered moot by
    the    Order’s    dismissal        of   the    Complaint     for    lack    of    subject
    matter jurisdiction.
    Following entry of the Order of September 16, 2011, Jack
    and Solomon Stratton filed a document purporting to make further
    objections to the Report.               Therein, the plaintiffs asserted that
    the federal court proceedings were “void,” accused the presiding
    district    judge      of    “crimes     of    false      imprisonment,      rape,      and
    sodomy of little children and the disabled,” and asserted yet
    again    that    “it   has    already     been     proven    that    Jack    and       Kathy
    Stratton    and   their      ten    children       were   never    parties       and   [the
    defendants] never had any jurisdiction over them.” J.A. 479,
    483.     Those objections were not further addressed, and Jack and
    Solomon Stratton filed a timely pro se notice of appeal from the
    Order.     We have assigned amicus counsel to assist our handling
    violations of his federal civil and Constitutional rights”).
    Because the district court ruled that it lacked subject matter
    jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, it did not
    address the defendants’ other alleged grounds for dismissal,
    which  included,   inter alia,    the   substantiality doctrine,
    insufficient service of process, statutes of limitations, and
    absolute immunity.   For example, the Report relates that five
    defendants were never served with process, including the DHHS,
    which was the only defendant in Claim VI.
    21
    and   resolution      of     the     appeal,         and    we    possess   jurisdiction
    pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . 20
    II.
    We   review     de     novo    a     district         court’s     dismissal    of    a
    complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
    the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.               See Burrell v. Virginia, 
    395 F.3d 508
    , 511 (4th Cir. 2005).                 Our evaluation of an appeal is not
    limited    to   the       grounds    relied          upon   by    the   district     court,
    however, and we are entitled to affirm on any basis apparent
    from the record.           See United States v. Smith, 
    395 F.3d 516
    , 519
    (4th Cir. 2005).            Although we accept the well-pleaded factual
    allegations     of    a    complaint       as       true,   and    we   draw    reasonable
    inferences therefrom in the plaintiff’s favor, we do not blindly
    accept     “allegations       that       are    merely      conclusory,        unwarranted
    deductions      of   fact,    or     unreasonable           inferences,”       nor   do   we
    accept “allegations that contradict matters properly subject to
    judicial notice.”           Veney v. Wyche, 
    293 F.3d 726
    , 730 (4th Cir.
    2002).     And although we are obliged to construe liberally the
    allegations of a pro se complaint, we are not required to credit
    outlandish conspiracy theories simply because a plaintiff does
    20
    Plaintiff Jack Stratton died during the pendency of this
    appeal.   There has been no motion for substitution, and he is
    therefore no longer a party. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(a)(1).
    22
    not have a lawyer.        See Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Svcs., 
    901 F.2d 387
    , 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990).
    III.
    A.
    As explained further below, we are satisfied to affirm the
    district court’s dismissal of the Complaint in this case.                         In
    doing so, we employ jurisdictional doctrines that are rarely
    relied upon in the federal courts, that is, the Rooker-Feldman
    doctrine and the substantiality doctrine.
    1.
    The    Rooker-Feldman          doctrine,    which     prohibits     the   lower
    federal     courts     from        reviewing    or   rejecting         state   court
    judgments,    serves     as    a    jurisdictional       bar   to   federal    court
    review of each of the federal claims alleged in the Complaint.
    We agree with the federal district court and the Report in that
    respect.     The doctrine takes its name from two decisions of the
    Supreme Court — Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 
    263 U.S. 413
    (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
    
    460 U.S. 462
     (1983).            Simply stated, those precedents bar the
    federal courts from exercising jurisdiction in “cases brought by
    state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court
    judgments     rendered        before    the     district       court    proceedings
    commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of
    23
    those judgments.”         Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries
    Corp., 
    544 U.S. 280
    , 284 (2005).                  More recently, the Supreme
    Court reaffirmed the propriety of applying the Rooker-Feldman
    doctrine to a situation where “[t]he losing party in state court
    filed suit in a U.S. District Court after the state proceedings
    ended,      complaining   of     an   injury      caused   by    the   state-court
    judgment and seeking federal-court review and rejection of that
    judgment.”      Skinner v. Switzer, 
    131 S. Ct. 1289
    , 1297 (2011). 21
    Except in limited circumstances not applicable here, the
    only federal court with the authority to reverse or modify the
    judgments of state courts is the Supreme Court itself.                         Exxon
    Mobil, 
    544 U.S. at
    283 (citing 
    28 U.S.C. § 1257
    ).                            In this
    appeal, the submissions of the amicus counsel agree that the
    Rooker-Feldman     doctrine      is     largely   applicable     to    the    various
    claims.      He argues, however, that the pro se allegations of the
    Complaint also allege an independent Fourteenth Amendment due
    process challenge, under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    , to the procedures
    used    by    Mecklenburg      County    and   the    state     courts   of    North
    21
    In Skinner, the Supreme Court concluded that the Rooker-
    Feldman doctrine would not, in the proper circumstances, bar a
    plaintiff from asserting a claim under § 1983, cautioning that
    when “a federal plaintiff presents an independent claim, it is
    not an impediment to the exercise of federal jurisdiction that
    the same or a related question was earlier aired between the
    parties in state court.” Skinner, 
    131 S. Ct. at 1297
     (internal
    quotation marks omitted).
    24
    Carolina for removing the Stratton children from the family home
    and terminating the Strattons’ parental rights.                              To the extent
    that any such due process claim may be derived from Claim I,
    however, it fails to pass muster for a sound legal reason also
    asserted    on   appeal       by    the     defendants         —     the    substantiality
    doctrine.
    2.
    As    explained      by       the    Supreme        Court,      the    substantiality
    doctrine    forbids     the    federal          district      courts       from    exercising
    subject matter jurisdiction over claims that are attenuated and
    insubstantial, absolutely devoid of merit, obviously frivolous,
    or no longer open to discussion.                     See Hagans v. Lavine, 
    415 U.S. 528
    , 536-37 (1974).            The substantiality doctrine has also been
    equated by the Court with a federal court’s dismissal of claims
    that are “essentially fictitious.”                     
    Id. at 537
    .
    As     we   have     heretofore            explained,         application       of     the
    substantiality doctrine “is especially important where a wholly
    frivolous federal claim serves as a pretext to allow a state-law
    issue, the real focus of the claim, to be litigated in the
    federal system.”        Lovern v. Edwards, 
    190 F.3d 648
    , 655 (4th Cir.
    1999).     And, when faced with clearly fictitious factual claims,
    other      federal      courts           have        dismissed       them         under     the
    substantiality       doctrine.           See,        e.g.,   Newby    v.    Obama,    
    681 F. Supp. 2d 53
    , 56 (D.D.C. 2010) (dismissing “bizarre conspiracy
    25
    theory”    related        to     “alleged       government      surveillance           and
    harassment,” based on substantiality doctrine); Richards v. Duke
    Univ., 
    480 F. Supp. 2d 222
    , 232 (D.D.C. 2007) (“Claims that are
    essentially fictitious . . . such as those that allege bizarre
    conspiracy       theories . . . warrant           a     dismissal        under     [the
    substantiality doctrine].”) (internal quotation marks omitted);
    O’Brien v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 
    927 F. Supp. 382
    , 385 (D.
    Ariz.   1995)    (“On     their    face,    Plaintiff’s      allegations         are    so
    bizarre and delusional that they are wholly insubstantial and
    cannot invoke this Court’s jurisdiction.”)
    B.
    As    the    lower        court   properly       determined    in    its     Order
    disposing of the case, the “plaintiffs’ allegations against the
    defendants — to the extent they can be deciphered — relate
    directly   to    and    are     inextricably      intertwined      with    the    North
    Carolina     courts’      judicial      termination        of   Jack      and     Kathy
    Stratton’s parental rights.”               See Report 7.        In their federal
    court filings, Jack and Solomon Stratton were unrelenting in
    their demand that the court take “judicial notice” of facts and
    law that contradicted the state courts’ custodial orders.                          See,
    e.g., J.A. 177 (requesting judicial notice that “the underlying
    alleged Mecklenburg County Juvenile Court Orders are void ab
    initio and legal nullities,” and that the Strattons’ “parental
    rights have never been terminated according to law and their
    26
    minor       children       continue     to    be     held     illegally”       (emphasis
    omitted)).         Indeed, the plaintiffs recognize in the Complaint
    that    the       actions    taken      by   the     County    DSS      were    directly
    authorized and, in some cases, ordered, by the state courts of
    North Carolina. 22
    As the amicus counsel acknowledges, to the extent Solomon
    Stratton seeks to vacate and enjoin the state court judgments
    relating to the juvenile proceedings, the termination of the
    Strattons’ parental rights, and the custody issues respecting
    their children, those claims have been irrevocably resolved by
    the North Carolina courts and are barred by the Rooker-Feldman
    doctrine. 23         See     Br.   of    Amicus      Curiae     22   n.2       (conceding
    applicability        of    Rooker-Feldman         doctrine    insofar    as    Complaint
    seeks       “to     vacate     and      enjoin”       state     court      judgments).
    Nevertheless, the amicus counsel has, to his credit, mined the
    22
    Insofar   as  Solomon   Stratton  disputes   the   legal
    consequences of the various state court proceedings — for
    example, the termination of the parental rights of his parents —
    the records of those proceedings constitute pertinent facts in
    this litigation, properly subject to judicial notice. See Veney
    v. Wyche, 
    293 F.3d 726
    , 731 (4th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R.
    Evid. 201.
    23
    As part of its Claim III, the Complaint reflects some
    familiarity by the plaintiffs with the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
    alleging    that    “[d]efendants  conspire,    pre-plan,   and
    execute . . . the fraudulent use of legal doctrines such as
    ‘Rooker-Feldman’ . . . to protect and conceal the enterprise
    from being exposed in the federal courts.”      Complaint ¶ 452
    (emphasis omitted).
    27
    Complaint and sought to identify and marshal allegations which,
    taken    together,            permit   a    good      faith   assertion       that    Claim     I
    raises a § 1983 due process challenge to the adequacy of North
    Carolina’s procedures for removing the Stratton children from
    their parents’ custody, as well as the state’s procedures for
    the termination of the Strattons’ parental rights.
    For        example,       the       amicus       emphasizes      the     Complaint’s
    allegation         that       “the     post-deprivation         hearings       required       by
    [North Carolina law] do not exist in Mecklenburg County.                                    They
    have    been      eliminated         through     the     extrinsic     fraud     scheme      set
    forth [in the Complaint].”                    Complaint ¶ 161.           The amicus also
    argues       that,       as    part    of    the       conspiracy     described        in    the
    Complaint,         the    paperwork        utilized      by   the    County    DSS    and    the
    state courts deceives parents into waiving their due process
    protections, and “[t]he Stratton parents and children have been
    denied      all    pre-deprivation           and      post-deprivation        due    process.”
    Id.     ¶¶ 171-75,            301.       Thus,        even    the    amicus     counsel       is
    constrained to rely on the bizarre conspiracy allegations to
    seek    a    viable        contention.           Even    if    the    due     process       claim
    proposed by the amicus counsel is acknowledged, however, it is
    necessarily circumscribed by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.                                     And
    any     such       claim       utterly      fails       to    pass    muster        under     the
    substantiality doctrine.
    28
    C.
    The liberal construction which we are obliged to afford to
    a pro se complaint is not without bounds.                               Admittedly, pro se
    complaints “represent the work of an untutored hand requiring
    special judicial solicitude.”                     Nevertheless, they “may present
    obscure or extravagant claims defying the most concerted efforts
    to unravel them.”             Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 
    775 F.2d 1274
    ,
    1277    (4th    Cir.    1985).         As    we     have    acknowledged,            “[d]istrict
    judges    are    not    mind       readers,”        and    the        principle      of     liberal
    construction      does       not     require      them      to    “conjure         up     questions
    never     presented       to    them . . . [or             to]        construct         full-blown
    claims from sentence fragments.”                    
    Id. at 1278
    .
    For     multiple       reasons,       each     of        the    plaintiffs’          claims,
    including the amicus counsel’s asserted due process claim, is
    frivolous, wholly without merit, and thus insubstantial.                                      Those
    reasons include the following:                    First, not having been properly
    pursued in the district court, any due process claim propounded
    by the amicus counsel has been waived.                           We would review such a
    claim    for    plain     error      only.        Second,         it    is    clear       that    the
    primary      focus      of     the     Complaint           is    to     seek        the     summary
    invalidation       of     the      state     court        orders        that       underlie       the
    termination      of     the    Strattons’         parental        rights.          Third,    it    is
    apparent       that     the     Strattons           were        represented          by     counsel
    throughout       the      state       court       proceedings,               and    that      their
    29
    constitutional rights were protected.                    Fourth, any claim against
    the judicial defendants would certainly be subject to dismissal
    based     on    the    doctrine        of   absolute     judicial    immunity.         See
    Bradley v. Fisher, 
    80 U.S. 335
     (1871) (explaining that “it is a
    general        principle    of     the      highest     importance    to    the    proper
    administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising
    the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own
    convictions,       without       apprehension       of   personal    consequences      to
    himself”); see also Dean v. Shirer, 
    547 F.2d 227
     (4th Cir. 1976)
    (affirming        dismissal       of    § 1983     claim    on    basis    of   judicial
    immunity). 24         Fifth, the due process allegations relied upon by
    the amicus counsel must be viewed in context, that is, they are
    scattered within a bizarre sixty-page Complaint that features a
    fictitious         centuries-old            international         child     trafficking
    conspiracy.        And finally, it is clear that any due process claim
    is a mere pretext for the real focus of the Complaint, which
    challenges the validity of records and proceedings of the North
    Carolina        courts     that    resulted        in    the     termination      of   the
    Strattons’ parental rights.                   As the district court explained,
    those claims were resolved in the North Carolina courts and are
    barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
    24
    Each of the eight judicial defendants asserted absolute
    judicial immunity.
    30
    In these circumstances, we agree with the defendants that
    all     of    the      plaintiffs’      claims       are     “so   attenuated     and
    unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.”                    Hagans, 
    415 U.S. at 536
    .               And we readily conclude that the due process
    argument asserted by amicus counsel is “a pretextual federal
    issue [asserted] solely for the purpose of having [] state-law
    claim[s]     [i.e.,         parental   rights      issues]    adjudicated   in    the
    federal system.”             Lovern, 
    190 F.3d at 655
    .              As we explained
    years      ago,    “Article      III   of    the    Constitution     forbids     this
    practice.”        
    Id.
     25
    IV.
    Pursuant to the foregoing, the Complaint is barred by the
    Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and the due process claim argued by the
    amicus counsel fails to pass muster under Rooker-Feldman and the
    25
    The two purported state law claims of the Complaint —
    assault and battery (Claim VII) and legal malpractice (Claim
    VIII) — must also be dismissed.     The sole basis for federal
    jurisdiction over them would be the supplemental jurisdiction
    statute, codified at 
    28 U.S.C. § 1367
    .       Section 1367 only
    extends the jurisdiction of a district court to claims which do
    not themselves fall within any independent basis for federal
    jurisdiction, but which are closely related to another claim
    over which the court possesses original jurisdiction.    When a
    district court dismisses federal claims for lack of subject
    matter jurisdiction, there was never a valid claim to which the
    state claims could be considered supplemental, and dismissal of
    the state claims is also required. Crosby v. City of Gastonia,
    
    635 F.3d 634
    , 644 (4th Cir. 2011).
    31
    substantiality     doctrine.    Because     the   federal    district    court
    lacked   subject    matter   jurisdiction    over   the     alleged   federal
    claims, its dismissal of those claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)
    was proper, and its concurrent dismissal of the state law claims
    was mandated.      We therefore affirm the judgment of the district
    court.
    AFFIRMED
    32
    GREGORY, Circuit Judge, concurring:
    I agree with the majority’s decision to affirm the district
    court’s dismissal of Stratton’s complaint.                    I concur with the
    rationale with one exception--I would find that the due process
    claim    is    substantial   and   not     barred       by    the    Rooker-Feldman
    doctrine, but fails to state a claim upon which relief could be
    granted.      I would thus affirm the dismissal of the due process
    claim on that ground.        See Greenhouse v. MCG Capital Corp., 
    392 F.3d 650
    , 660 (4th Cir. 2004).
    I.
    Admittedly, in the complaint, Solomon Stratton claims that
    he and his family are victims of an international Luciferian
    child trafficking conspiracy whose reach plausibly extends from
    the     United    Nations    to    child     protection             authorities    in
    Mecklenburg      County.     Beyond      these      incredulous         allegations
    however,      Solomon   Stratton   asserts       that    he    was    deprived    due
    process of law in the initial seizure of the Stratton children
    and in the termination of the Stratton parents’ rights.
    The majority recognizes that “Claim I raises a § 1983 due
    process challenge to the adequacy of North Carolina’s procedures
    for removing the Stratton children from their parents’ custody,
    as well as the state’s procedures for the termination of the
    Strattons’ parental rights.”          Ante, at 28.             Yet, it concludes
    33
    that the due process claim articulated in the complaint is so
    attenuated that it is insubstantial, and is merely a pretext for
    having    a    state-law      claim    adjudicated       in       federal    court    thus
    barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.                        I am of a different
    view.
    II.
    A.
    First,     I    would     find     that   the      due       process    claim       is
    substantial and thus jurisdiction exists to hear the merits.
    The   substantiality         doctrine    states     that      “federal       courts      are
    without       power   to     entertain     claims     otherwise         within       their
    jurisdiction if they are ‘so attenuated and insubstantial as to
    be absolutely devoid of merit, wholly insubstantial, obviously
    frivolous,       plainly      insubstantial,        or     no       longer     open      to
    discussion.’”         Davis v. Pak, 
    856 F.2d 648
    , 650-51 (4th Cir.
    1988) (quoting Hagans v. Lavine, 
    415 U.S. 528
    , 536-37 (1974)).
    The     “insubstantiality         threshold     is      a    difficult       one   to
    meet,” as “dismissal for insubstantiality is appropriate only
    where the proffered claim is truly frivolous,” or is merely a
    “pretext[]      for    the     purpose     of   having        a     state    law     claim
    adjudicated in the federal system.”                   Davis, 
    856 F.2d at 651
    (emphasis      added).     Thus,   a    dismissal     for         insubstantiality        is
    “appropriate in only the rarest of circumstances where . . . the
    34
    complaint is deemed totally implausible.”                    Apple v. Glenn, 
    183 F.3d 477
    , 480 (6th Cir. 1999); see Ricketts v. Midwest Nat.
    Bank, 
    874 F.2d 1177
    , 1182 (7th Cir. 1989) (“insubstantiality
    dismissals         should     be      applied         only    in        extraordinary
    circumstances”).
    If the “complaint raises an arguable question of law which
    the court may ultimately resolve against the plaintiff,” the
    more    appropriate      mechanism    for        dismissal   is    Federal    Rule    of
    Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).            Ricketts, 
    874 F.2d at
    1182 n.6; see
    Neitzke v. Williams, 
    490 U.S. 319
    , 326 & n.6 (1989) (holding
    that Rule 12(b)(1) insubstantiality dismissal is appropriate if
    based    on   the       judge’s    disbelief        of   a   complaint’s       factual
    allegations, whereas, a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is appropriate
    where while operating under the assumption that all or a set of
    facts in the complaint are true, “without regard to whether it
    is   based    on   an    outlandish    legal       theory    or    on   a   close    but
    ultimately unavailing one,” it is clear that no relief could be
    granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent
    with the allegations).
    Applying these principles, it seems to me that we could
    disregard the bizarre conspiracy alleged by Solomon Stratton and
    consider whether his due process claim fails to state a claim.
    The due process claim asserted here is not dependent on the
    Luciferian     conspiracy;        whether    the    Strattons      were     denied   due
    35
    process of law in the initial seizure of the children and in the
    permanent     termination          of    parental      rights      is    a    sufficiently
    substantial legal question that has not been addressed by any
    court   in    the   12     years    since      this    matter      arose.       Given    the
    liberal construction due to pro se litigants, and our duty to
    apply the substantiality doctrine only in rare or extraordinary
    circumstances, the more appropriate approach would be to proceed
    to analyze whether the claim passes muster under Rule 12(b)(6).
    Before turning to that question, I first address the separate
    question whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars the claim.
    B.
    The majority concludes that to the extent the due process
    claim   is    acknowledged,         it    is    “necessarily        circumscribed”       by
    Rooker-Feldman.          Ante, at 28.           I disagree.        The Rooker-Feldman
    doctrine      essentially        holds     that       lower   federal        courts     lack
    authority to “sit in direct review of state court decisions.”
    Feldman,     
    460 U.S. at
    482    n.    16    (citation         omitted).       This
    doctrine applies specifically to cases where “the loser in state
    court files suit in federal district court seeking redress for
    an   injury     allegedly        caused        by    the   state     court’s      decision
    itself.”      Davani,      434     F.3d    at       713.   Thus,    in       applying    the
    doctrine, (1) there must be a prior state court decision; and
    (2) the loser in the state court must be challenging or seeking
    to undo the prior state court’s decision by alleging an injury
    36
    caused by the state court judgment itself.                    The doctrine has
    narrow applicability, and should not be confused or conflated
    with preclusion doctrines.             Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Saudi Basic
    Indus. Corp., 
    544 U.S. 280
    , 284 (2005).
    The Third Circuit recently considered whether a due process
    claim based on custodial termination proceedings was barred by
    the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.              In B.S. v. Somerset County, the
    plaintiff “challenge[d] the process she received with respect to
    state court orders.”            
    704 F.3d 250
    , 259 (3d Cir. 2013).             The
    state   court    orders      terminated    the   mother’s   custodial      rights,
    transferring them to the father, and denied the mother’s habeas
    petition in which she argued the county violated state law by
    removing her daughter from her custody without a hearing.                     The
    Third Circuit held that because “the injury Mother claims is
    . . . traceable to the [a]ppellee’s actions, as opposed to the
    state court orders those actions allegedly caused, . . . the
    Rooker-Feldman        doctrine   [does    not]   preclude[]      federal   subject
    matter jurisdiction.”          
    Id. at 260
    .
    Here,      the   due    process   claim     asserts,   as   amicus    counsel
    frames it, “an unjustified seizure of [Solomon] and his siblings
    by Mecklenburg County,” “an improper exercise of jurisdiction
    over [Solomon] and his family,” and a lack of “fundamental due
    process   in      the       County’s   termination     procedures.”        (Amicus
    Counsel’s Br. 10, 23.)            These allegations are independent of,
    37
    and do not seek to overturn, any prior state-court judgment. 1
    Stratton’s relief does not depend on whether the prior state
    court judgments are overturned or vacated.                           Even if the order
    terminating parental rights was valid, the actions taken by the
    County to seize and retain custody over the children may have
    been       improper.        Because        Stratton      alleges          an   independent
    constitutional tort claim which is not dependent on the validity
    of the orders terminating parental rights, the Rooker-Feldman
    doctrine does not bar the due process claim asserted here.
    C.
    Because I believe the due process claim survives both the
    insubstantiality bar and the Rooker-Feldman bar, I next consider
    whether the due process claim fails to state a claim.                               Stripping
    away       the   incredulous       conspiracy         theory,       succinctly        stated,
    Stratton         asserts    that     the     removal         of     the     children        and
    termination of parental rights deprived them of their right to
    live       together    as   a   family     without      due       process      of    law,    in
    violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    The       Due   Process     Clause        of    the        Fourteenth        Amendment
    prohibits States from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or
    1
    As the majority notes, amicus counsel properly concedes
    that to the extent that the prayer for relief asks the court “to
    vacate and enjoin” various state-court judgments, (see J.A.
    158), the request is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
    38
    property, without due process of law.”                      U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
    Due    Process     consists       of    both    substantive      and   procedural       due
    process components, both of which are asserted here.                               Sunrise
    Corp. of Myrtle Beach v. City of Myrtle Beach, 
    420 F.3d 322
    , 328
    (4th       Cir.   2005).     To        state    a   due     process    claim,       either
    substantive or procedural, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that
    they       have   been    deprived        of    “interests      encompassed        by   the
    Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty and property,” Bd.
    of    Regents     v.   Roth,   
    408 U.S. 564
    ,      569   (1972);    and    (2)   the
    deprivation         did      not        comport        with      process         that    is
    constitutionally due, Morrissey v. Brewer, 
    408 U.S. 471
    , 484
    (1972).       For a substantive due process claim, a plaintiff must
    also show that the state’s action is so arbitrary and egregious
    that it “shocks the conscience.” 2                  Cnty of Sacramento v. Lewis,
    
    523 U.S. 833
    , 846 (1998).
    The    Supreme     Court    has     recognized       a   “fundamental       liberty
    interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management
    of their child.”           Santosky v. Kramer, 
    455 U.S. 745
    , 753 (1982).
    As such, there is no doubt that now-deceased Jack Stratton had a
    2
    The Ninth Circuit has held that the proper test for the
    deprivation   of    familial  companionship  in   violation  of
    substantive due process is whether the state action amounts to
    “unwarranted interference” as opposed to whether it “shocks the
    conscience.”   Crowe v. Cnty. of San Diego, 
    608 F.3d 406
    , 441 &
    n.23 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted).
    39
    liberty    interest        in     retaining       custody         over,    caring    for,      and
    rearing his children as he deemed appropriate.                                   See Jordan by
    Jordan     v.   Jackson,         
    15 F.3d 333
    ,     342      (4th    Cir.    1994)    (“The
    state’s     removal        of     a     child     from      his     parents       indisputably
    constitutes         an   interference           with    a    liberty       interest      of    the
    parents    and      thus    triggers       the        procedural      protections         of   the
    Fourteenth Amendment.”).                 However, because Jack is no longer a
    party to this action, the issue is whether Solomon, Jack’s son
    and the remaining Appellant, has a reciprocal liberty interest
    in being supervised and cared for by his parents.
    Whether children “have cognizable, reciprocal interests in
    the   companionship             and    supervision       of       their    parents,      and    in
    maintaining the emotional bonds that develop within the unitary
    family” is an open question in this Circuit and has not been
    decided by the Supreme Court. 3                        Jordan, 
    15 F.3d at
    343 n.10
    (citing     Michael        H.    v.     Gerald    D.,       
    491 U.S. 110
    ,    130    (1989)
    (plurality) (“We have never had occasion to decide whether a
    child     has   a    liberty          interest,       symmetrical         with    that    of   her
    parent, in maintaining her filial relationship.”); Smith v. Org.
    3
    In Santosky, the Supreme Court recognized that “the child
    and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous
    termination of their natural relationship,” 
    455 U.S. at 760
    , yet
    the Court has never held that this interest amounts to a
    Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest.
    40
    of Foster Families, 
    431 U.S. 816
    , 847 (1977)). 4                          For purposes of
    analysis,         I     assume   that        children     have        reciprocal    liberty
    interests         in     retaining      nurturing        relationships       with      their
    parents.          See Michael H., 
    491 U.S. at 130
     (assuming for the
    purpose      of       analysis   that    a    child     has   a   liberty    interest      in
    maintaining her filial relationship).                     Based on this assumption,
    Solomon has liberty interest in the supervision of his parents
    and may assert a due process claim, even in Jack’s absence.                                A
    review of the complaint indicates that Solomon has sufficiently
    pled       the    existence      and    deprivation       of      a    liberty     interest,
    satisfying the first prong to state a due process claim.
    As    to       the   second     prong,    Solomon       must     allege     that   the
    deprivation did not comport with constitutionally due process.
    Here, his claim fails.
    4
    The Second and Ninth Circuits have held that children
    possess such liberty interests.   See Smith v. City of Fontana,
    
    818 F.2d 1411
    , 1418 (9th Cir. 1987) overruled on other grounds
    by Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina, 
    199 F.3d 1037
     (9th Cir. 1999)
    (en banc) (“The companionship and nurturing interests of parent
    and child in maintaining a tight familial bond are reciprocal,
    and we see no reason to accord less constitutional value to the
    child-parent relationship than we accord to the parent-child
    relationship.”); Duchesne v. Sugarman, 
    566 F.2d 817
    , 825 (2d
    Cir. 1977) (“[W]e are concerned with the most essential and
    basic aspect of familial privacy[--]the right of the family to
    remain together without the coercive interference of the awesome
    power of the state.    This right to the preservation of family
    integrity encompasses the reciprocal rights of both parent and
    children.”).
    41
    It is true that regardless of the state’s practices and
    procedures,     “[w]hat      process      is      due”      is     a     question   of
    constitutional law, not state law.                 Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v.
    Loudermill, 
    470 U.S. 532
    , 542 (1985).                    When a state seeks to
    deprive a child of the liberty interest in being nurtured by
    their parent, it must provide procedures that are fundamentally
    fair.     See Santosky, 
    455 U.S. at 753-54
     (holding that “[w]hen
    the State moves to destroy . . . familial bonds, it must provide
    parents with fundamentally fair procedures.”).
    Yet,    the    complaint   fails     to      satisfy    the       second   element
    because it is clear that the state court provided Stratton with
    notice and adequate hearings prior to the termination of the
    familial relations.          The complaint alleges numerous procedural
    defects, none of which persuade otherwise, and only one is worth
    addressing.        Specific to the initial seizure of the children,
    the complaint alleges that the Strattons:                        (1) never received
    certain     state-mandated      summons      or    at    the      very    least,    the
    required 7-day initial hearing, see N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 7B-
    506(a);   and   (2)   were    never    given      the    opportunity       to   present
    evidence to determine whether to continue custody, see id. § 7B-
    506(b).     These assertions bely the court records which are the
    proper subject of judicial notice.                See Veney v. Wyche, 
    293 F.3d 726
    , 730 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding that in considering whether a
    claim fails to state a claim, we need not “‘accept as true
    42
    allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial
    notice     or   by    exhibit.’”          (quoting      Sprewell     v.    Golden      State
    Warriors, 
    266 F.3d 979
    , 988 (9th Cir. 2001)).
    On    January        30,    2001,    when     the    Stratton       children      were
    removed from their parents’ home, the Strattons received summons
    to appear on February 2, 2001, for the appointment of counsel
    and other matters relating to the removal of the children.                               On
    February 2, the said hearing occurred to determine whether to
    continue custody of the Stratton children.                       The Stratton parents
    attended.       No evidence was adduced; however, the court adopted
    the   facts     in   the    petition       submitted       by    MCDSS    to   obtain    the
    nonsecure custody warrant, which were the same facts as observed
    by MCDSS on their first visit to the Strattons’ first residence
    on    December       19,    2000.     The     matter       was     then    set    for     an
    adjudicatory hearing on March 12, 2001.
    Prior to the March 12 hearing, on February 16, the Stratton
    parents and MCDSS entered into a plan that should have led to
    reunification        of     the    parents        and     the    children.        In    the
    agreement, the parties adopted the same facts as observed by
    MCDSS on their first visit.                  The Stratton parents signed the
    agreement.       On March 12, at the adjudicatory hearing, the only
    evidence presented consisted of the court reading the facts in
    the mediation agreement into the record.                         At that hearing, the
    Stratton parents affirmed those facts.
    43
    Their affirmation of the facts is where this case fails, as
    it   cannot      be    said   that    they    were       denied      an     opportunity          to
    present     evidence       where     they    did       not    take     advantage           of   the
    opportunity given to them to do so.                      Moreover, it appears that
    at some later proceedings, though Jack and Kathy may not have
    testified        themselves,       they    adduced      testimony         in    the    form      of
    affidavits        of    other   witnesses,          which      favored         the     Stratton
    parents’    positions.          It    is    clear      from     this      record      that      the
    Strattons     were      given   notice      and    an    opportunity           to     be   heard.
    Therefore, the complaint fails to state a procedural due process
    violation.
    As    to    the    substantive        due    process         claim,      the    complaint
    asserts     numerous       bizarre     allegations           but    fails      to    state      any
    plausible facts that meet the “shock the conscience” standard.
    As such, the complaint fails to state a substantive due process
    violation.
    III.
    For    the       foregoing     reasons,      I    would       affirm      the    district
    court’s dismissal of the complaint.
    44
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-2131

Citation Numbers: 521 F. App'x 278

Judges: King, Gregory, Keenan

Filed Date: 5/31/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024

Authorities (31)

christopher-jordan-by-his-parents-and-next-friends-philip-and-betty-sue , 15 F.3d 333 ( 1994 )

Evelyn Davis v. Chong M. Pak Ralph G. Cantrell Diane E. ... , 856 F.2d 648 ( 1988 )

Neitzke v. Williams , 109 S. Ct. 1827 ( 1989 )

County of Sacramento v. Lewis , 118 S. Ct. 1708 ( 1998 )

Bruce Beaudett v. City of Hampton City Attorneys A. Paul ... , 775 F.2d 1274 ( 1985 )

James H. Ricketts, Sr. v. Midwest National Bank, James H. ... , 874 F.2d 1177 ( 1989 )

clifton-william-weller-iii-individually-and-as-father-and-next-friend-of , 901 F.2d 387 ( 1990 )

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill , 105 S. Ct. 1487 ( 1985 )

charles-greenhouse-individually-and-on-behalf-of-all-others-similarly , 392 F.3d 650 ( 2004 )

Newby v. Obama , 681 F. Supp. 2d 53 ( 2010 )

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. , 125 S. Ct. 1517 ( 2005 )

Michael Lovern, Sr. v. Mark A. Edwards, Individually and in ... , 190 F.3d 648 ( 1999 )

Josephina Duchesne as Administratrix of the Estate of ... , 566 F.2d 817 ( 1977 )

In Re Stratton , 159 N.C. App. 461 ( 2003 )

Clyde C. Dean v. Vernon Shirer and John Dukes Wactor , 42 A.L.R. Fed. 155 ( 1976 )

United States v. Terrence Ormstom Smith , 395 F.3d 516 ( 2005 )

Morrissey v. Brewer , 92 S. Ct. 2593 ( 1972 )

Richards v. Duke University , 480 F. Supp. 2d 222 ( 2007 )

Thomas L. Apple v. John Glenn, U.S. Senator , 183 F.3d 477 ( 1999 )

In Re Stratton , 153 N.C. App. 428 ( 2002 )

View All Authorities »