Wright v. BANK OF AMERICA et al

Filing 24

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss; granting 19 Motion to Dismiss Party; granting 20 Motion to Dismiss Complaint. This action is dismissed in its entirety. Ordered by U.S. District Judge CLAY D LAND on 05/19/2014. (CGC) (Main Document 24 replaced on 5/19/2014) (tlf).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
LORETTA WRIGHT,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,

*

Defendants.

CASE NO.

4:14-CV-2 (CDL)

*

O R D E R
Plaintiff
“Declaration

Loretta
of

Wright,

proceeding
in

Insolvency”

pro

Court.

this

se,

filed

a

Citing

11 U.S.C. § 362 and “12 U.S.C. [§] 108d,” Wright asks the Court
to cancel her debts to Defendants, as well as “all known and
unknown current valid and outstanding debts anywhere on planet
Earth.”1

Compl. 1, ¶ 3, ECF No. 1; Am. Compl. 1, ¶ 3, ECF No. 3.

Defendants argue that Wright’s Complaint fails to state a claim
and should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).
and

As discussed in more detail below, the Court agrees,

Defendants’

granted.
Educational

In

motions

addition,

Credit

to

dismiss

Wright’s

Management

(ECF

motion

Nos.

to

Corporation

8

&

dismiss
(ECF

No.

20)

are

Defendant
19)

is

granted.
1

11 U.S.C. § 362 provides for an automatic stay of actions after the
filing of a bankruptcy petition. There is no current statute numbered
12 U.S.C. § 108d.
In 1994, a statute that had been codified at 12
U.S.C. § 108 was repealed.
That statute related to examination of
plates, dies, and other material by the Comptroller of the Currency.

Wright is not pursuing protection under the United States
Bankruptcy Code.

Rather, as she puts it, she “is seeking a

ground breaking/landmark/benchmark law(s)” to relieve her of all
her

debts,

not

bankruptcy.

just

those

debts

that

are

dischargeable

in

Pl.’s 1st Resp. to Bank of Am.’s Mot. to Dismiss 2,

ECF No. 17 (noting that Wright cannot satisfy the “means test”
for a Chapter 13 individual debt adjustment plan and that her
“taxes,

other

government

debts,

and

written off” under a Chapter 7 plan).
power of the judicial branch.
relieve her of her debts.

mortgage

would

not

be

Wright misunderstands the

The Court cannot make up a law to

Legislating is the job of Congress,

and it likely could not even provide the relief Wright seeks—
individual relief that applies only to her.

U.S. Const. art. I,

§ 1; id. art. I, § 8 (stating that Congress has the power to
establish

“uniform

Laws

on

the

throughout the United States”).
comprehensive
start:

the

system

United

to

of

Bankruptcies

Congress has already created a

provide

States

subject

honest

Bankruptcy

debtors

Code.

If

with

a

fresh

Wright

wants

relief from her debts, she must use the route Congress provided,
even if that route does not provide all the relief Wright wants.
Wright nonetheless contends that she is entitled to debt
relief to ensure her “unalienable rights to life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness under the Declaration of Independence
and the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Pl.’s 1st Resp. to Bank of Am.’s

2

Mot. to Dismiss 2.
from

depriving

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State

“any

person

of

without due process of law.”

life,

liberty,

and

property,

U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1.

In

her Complaint and her Amended Complaint, Wright did not allege
any facts to suggest that any State has deprived her of property
without

due

process.

So,

to

the

extent

that

Wright

is

attempting to assert a due process claim under the Fourteenth
Amendment, that claim is dismissed.
In her responses to Defendants’ motions to dismiss, Wright
appears to allege that Defendant Bank of America has foreclosed
on

or

is

attempting

to

foreclose

on

property

Wright

owns.

Wright argues that “the current United States Foreclosures Laws
[sic]” are unconstitutional and that Defendant Bank of America
“should not be allowed to foreclose on property since it was a
recipient

of

Federal

money

taxpayers [sic] expense.”
to Dismiss 2, ECF No. 18.

incentives

programs

[sic]

at

Pl.’s 2d Resp. to Bank of Am.’s Mot.
At a more fundamental level, Wright

contends that foreclosure “is a crime against humanity because
it is cruel and humane.”

Id.

The Court declines to strike down

the Nation’s foreclosure laws, which routinely have been upheld
by the higher courts.

The Court also declines to attempt to

rewrite Wright’s pleadings to assert a claim under a valid law.
Even if the Court were permitted to help Wright rewrite her

3

Complaint—which it is not—the Court cannot speculate about the
facts and circumstances that might give rise to valid claims.
In summary, Wright’s Complaint and Amended Complaint are
frivolous.

But more to the point, they fail to state a claim

under existing law.

Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 8

& 20) are granted, and this action is dismissed in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 19th day of May, 2014.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4