Hamilton v. U.S. Bank National Association et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM - Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 7/29/16. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE

KENDALL W. HAMILTON,

)

)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
) Civ. Action No. 16-501-GMS
)
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, )
et~.,
)
Defendants.

)

)

MEMORANDUM

I.

INTRODUCTION
The plaintiff Kendall W. Hamilton ("Hamilton") filed this action on June 27, 2016

complaining that the defendants "stole" his home using fraudulent, illegal, rescinded/voided and
unconsummated "note and mortgage" which were originated fraudulently in Delaware. (D.I. 2 at

4.) Before the court are Hamilton's motion for immediate ruling and a motion to expedite. (D.!.
7, 10.)

II.

BACKGROUND
Hamilton resides at 143 N. Katrin Circle, New Castle, Delaware ("the premises"). In his

motion for immediate ruling, Hamilton indicates that an order was entered in the Superior Court
of the State of Delaware for Hamilton to vacate the premises before August 2,2016. He asks
that his case in Superior Court be moved to this court to suspend the Superior Court's ruling to
vacate the premises. (D.I. 7.)
Exhibits attached to the motion indicate the following. On June 30, 2016, the Superior
Court of the State of Delaware entered a rule absolute order for a writ of possession on Hamilton

and for NCRC Housing Rehab Fund, LLC, its successors and/or assigns, to have peaceable
possession of the premises, Us. Bank, National Association v. Hamilton, C.A. No. N11L-05-209
ALR. On July 1, 2016, U.S. Bank, National Association sought issuance of a writ of possession
to the sheriff of New Castle County, Delaware to serve a writ of possession upon Hamilton at the
premises in New Castle, Delaware. The writ of possession issued on July 12,2016. On July 14,
2016, Hamilton received a notice of eviction to vacate the premises by August 2, 2016 at 10:00
a.m. Also attached to the motion were two receipts for payments, one dated June 10,2016, and
one dated July 15,2016, made to Revitalizing American P. The receipts state they are for
"donation - as agreed" for the premises.

III.

DISCUSSION
The relief sought by Hamilton is barred by the Younger abstention doctrine and, in the

alternative, the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. In addition, the Anti-Injunction Act weighs against
granting the motion.

A.

Younger Abstention

To the extent there are pending State proceedings, the court must abstain. Under the

Younger abstention doctrine, a federal district court must abstain from hearing a federal case
which interferes with certain state proceedings.! See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). In
addition, under Younger, federal courts are prevented from enjoining pending state proceedings
absent extraordinary circumstances. 2 Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass 'n,

!The court may raise the issue of Younger abstention sua sponte. O'Neill v. City of
Philadelphia, 32 F.3d785, n.l (3d Cir. 1994).
2The abstention doctrine as defined in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), provides
that federal courts are not to interfere with pending state criminal proceedings. The Younger
doctrine has been extended to civil cases and state administrative proceedings. Middlesex

2

457 U.S. 423, 437 (1982). Abstention is appropriate only 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 provide an adequate opportunity to raise the federal
claims. Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666,670 (3d Cir. 2010). The doctrine applies to
proceedings until all appellate remedies have been exhausted, unless the matter falls within one
of the Younger exceptions. 3 Huffman v. Pursue Ltd, 420 U.S. 592, 608 (1975).
The Younger elements have been are met and none of the its exceptions apply. First,
there are on-going state proceedings for the foreclosure of real property. Second, Delaware has
an important interest in resolving real estate issues, and a ruling in the Delaware courts
implicates the important interest of preserving the authority of the state's judicial system. See

e.g., Almazan v.

]'1

2nd Mortg. Co. ofNJ, Inc., 2011 WL 2670871 (D.N.J. June 2, 2011) (finding

that the State has important interests in the foreclosure of property under the Younger doctrine);

Greg v. Pagano, 287 F. App'x 155 (3d Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (court abstained under the
Younger doctrine where plaintiffs sought a declaration that the judge was not authorized to
nullify transfer of title and for an order enjoining the sheriff from conducting a sheriff's sale.).
Finally, Hamilton has an adequate opportunity to raise any potential fraud claims in state court.

County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass 'n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982); Huffman v. Pursue Ltd,
420 U.S. 592 (1975).
3Exceptions to the Younger doctrine exist where irreparable injury is "both great and
immediate," Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, where the state law is "flagrantly and patently violative of
express constitutional prohibitions," id at 53, or where there is a showing of "bad faith,
harassment, or ... other unusual circumstances that would call for equitable relief." Id at 54.

3

Accordingly, pursuant to Younger and its progeny the court must abstain. See Pennzoil Co. v.

Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15(1987) (stating that Younger abstention is favored even after the
plaintiffs failed to raise their federal claims in the ongoing state proceedings).

B.

Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

To the extent there are no longer on-going actions in State court, the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine prohibits this court from maintaining subject matter jurisdiction over Hamilton's
motions, which seek to vacate the findings of the Delaware courts. "The Rooker-Feldman
doctrine prevents the lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by
'state-court losers' challenging' state-court judgments rendered before the district court
proceedings commenced.'" Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459,460 (2006) (citations omitted). The
court finds that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars the plaintiff s claim because the relief he
seeks would require "(1) the federal court [to] determine that the state court judgment was
erroneously entered in order to grant the requested relief, or (2) the federal court [to] take an
action that would negate the state court's judgment ...." In re Knapper, 407 F.3d 573, 581 (3d
Cir. 2005). In his motion, Hamilton asks the court to "suspend" the Superior Court's order. In
essence, he asks this court determine the ruling was in error and to grant relief by suspending the
order. The court does not have the power to grant his request.

C.

Anti-Injunction Act

Further, the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits the federal courts from interfering with
proceedings in the state courts. "A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay
proceedings in a State Court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where
necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments." 28 U.S.C. § 2283.

See Becker v. Evans, 496 F. Supp. 20,21 (M.D. Pa. 1980) ("State court proceedings to enforce a
4

state court judgment have been found not to corne within any of [the three exceptions of the
Anti-Injunction Act], and therefore the district court lacks jurisdiction to issue the injunction [to
stay the writ of execution on a state court judgment]."); Clark v. United States Bank Nat 'I Ass 'n,
2004 WL 1380166, at *3 (E.D. Pa. June 18,2004) ("The Anti-Injunction Act simply does not
allow federal courts to enjoin state court proceedings, including mortgage foreclosure actions,
absent the application of an exception under the statute.") (citations omitted).

D.

Removal

Finally, Hamilton seems to indicate that he wishes to remove the State court action to this
court. However, he has failed to comply with the requisites for removal. In his initial filing, he
did not provide for the court's review any copies of process, pleadings, or orders from the state
civil proceeding other. 4 See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Nor does it seem that he served copies of his
initial filing upon any parties if his intent was to remove a State case. On the other hand, it may
be that Hamilton intended to file a new complaint in this court. It simply is not clear.
Therefore, Hamilton will be ordered to advise the court ifhis intent is for this case to
proceed as the removal of us. Bank, National Association v. Hamilton, C.A. No. Nl1L-05-209
ALR (if is remains pending), or to proceed as a new complaint raising new claims in this court. 5

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the court will deny the motion for immediately ruling and motion

4Some of these documents were filed at Docket Item 7.
5The court notes that it may be that this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction
over the plaintiffs' action under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. However, at this juncture, the
court is unable to make that detennination.

5

to expedite. (D.1. 7, 10.) The plaintiffwill be ordered to advise the court how he wishes to
proceed with this case. A separate order shall issue .

.--..

~
,2016
Wilmingto ,Delaware

"..1

l.Q

6