Anne McShane, et al. v. Craig Karsnitz, et al.

D. Delaware

Anne McShane, et al. v. Craig Karsnitz, et al.

DecidedOctober 14, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-00667

StatusUnknown

This text of Anne McShane, et al. v. Craig Karsnitz, et al. (Anne McShane, et al. v. Craig Karsnitz, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anne McShane, et al. v. Craig Karsnitz, et al., (D. Del. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

ANNE MCSHANE, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 24-667 (JLH) ) CRAIG KARSNITZ, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER Plaintiffs Anne McShane and Sabrina McCauley, of Milton, Delaware, filed a complaint pro se, and the Court granted them leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 3, 5.) The complaint is subject to this Court’s sua sponte review and dismissal upon a determination that the pleading is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). At this early stage of the case, the Court accepts the facts alleged in Plaintiffs’ pro se pleading as true, draws all reasonable inferences in their favor, and asks only whether the complaint, liberally construed, contains facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 4, 2024. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from a state foreclosure proceeding involving a residential property in Sussex County, which concluded with a public sale scheduled for June 18, 2024. (See D.I. 3 at 17-22, 30.) In this action, Plaintiffs seek money damages and injunctive relief to prevent public sale and remain in possession of the property. (See id. at 30-31, 33-35.) To the extent Plaintiffs seek (or sought) to stop the state foreclosure proceeding, this Court abstains pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine. That doctrine applies when “(1) there are ongoing state proceedings that are judicial in nature; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims.” Schall v. Joyce, 885 F.2d 101, 106 (3d Cir. 1989). Plaintiffs both could and should have taken up their concerns regarding the pending foreclosure with the Delaware state courts.! NOW, THEREFORE, at Wilmington, on this 14th day of October, 2025, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint (D.I. 3) is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

e Honorable Jennrfer L. Hall United Sta istrict Judge

' To the extent the state court foreclosure is now final, this Court must give effect to that judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (requiring the federal court to “give the same preclusive effect to a state-court judgment as another court of that State would give”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

ANNE MCSHANE, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 24-667 (JLH) ) CRAIG KARSNITZ, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER Plaintiffs Anne McShane and Sabrina McCauley, of Milton, Delaware, filed a complaint pro se, and the Court granted them leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 3, 5.) The complaint is subject to this Court’s sua sponte review and dismissal upon a determination that the pleading is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). At this early stage of the case, the Court accepts the facts alleged in Plaintiffs’ pro se pleading as true, draws all reasonable inferences in their favor, and asks only whether the complaint, liberally construed, contains facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 4, 2024. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from a state foreclosure proceeding involving a residential property in Sussex County, which concluded with a public sale scheduled for June 18, 2024. (See D.I. 3 at 17-22, 30.) In this action, Plaintiffs seek money damages and injunctive relief to prevent public sale and remain in possession of the property. (See id. at 30-31, 33-35.) To the extent Plaintiffs seek (or sought) to stop the state foreclosure proceeding, this Court abstains pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine. That doctrine applies when “(1) there are ongoing state proceedings that are judicial in nature; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims.” Schall v. Joyce, 885 F.2d 101, 106 (3d Cir. 1989). Plaintiffs both could and should have taken up their concerns regarding the pending foreclosure with the Delaware state courts.! NOW, THEREFORE, at Wilmington, on this 14th day of October, 2025, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint (D.I. 3) is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

e Honorable Jennrfer L. Hall United Sta istrict Judge

' To the extent the state court foreclosure is now final, this Court must give effect to that judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (requiring the federal court to “give the same preclusive effect to a state-court judgment as another court of that State would give”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Anne McShane, et al. v. Craig Karsnitz, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anne-mcshane-et-al-v-craig-karsnitz-et-al-ded-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack