Eason et al v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
Filing
9
OPINION AND ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice. It is further ordered that Plaintiff Trellis Eason's Emergency Motion to Set Aside Improper Foreclosure with Injunctive Relief 8 and Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 1 are denied was moot. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 4/28/17. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
TRELLIS EASON and DELORES
DAVIS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
1:16-cv-4247-WSD-JFK
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Trellis Eason’s (“Eason”)
Emergency Motion to Set Aside Improper Foreclosure with Injunctive Relief [8]
(“Emergency Motion”).1
1
Although the Emergency Motion was purportedly filed by both Eason and
Plaintiff Delores Davis (“Davis”) (together, “Plaintiffs”), only Eason’s signature
appears on the document. Parties generally are able to represent themselves pro se.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1654. “The right to appear pro se, however, is limited to those
parties conducting ‘their own cases’ and does not apply to persons representing the
interests of others.” Franklin v. Garden State Life Ins., 462 F. App’x 928, 930
(11th Cir. 2012); see also Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664
(9th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he privilege to represent oneself pro se provided by § 1654 is
personal to the litigant and does not extend to other parties or entities.”). Because
Eason is not an attorney and is not licensed to practice law in this Court, he cannot
represent Delores Davis or any other party. The Court construes the Emergency
Motion as filed only by Eason.
On November 15, 2016, Eason filed his Application for Leave to Proceed
in Forma Pauperis [1] (“IFP Application”), attaching his Complaint [1.1] titled
“Complaint Improper Foreclosure with Injunctive Relief with a Federal Stay of
Eviction Pursuant to 28 USCA 1446(D).” On November 17, 2016, Magistrate
Judge Janet F. King found Eason’s Complaint to be “a confusing jumble of legal
and statutory citations . . . seek[ing] a mixture of relief not available based on the
current pleading.” ([2] at 1-2 (“November 17th Order”). The Magistrate Judge
concluded that the Complaint does not establish subject matter jurisdiction or
properly state a claim for relief. ([2] at 7). The Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiffs
to file, within twenty-one days, a notice of removal or an amended complaint:
Plaintiff Eason and—if she properly executes the amended pleading—
Plaintiff Davis are ORDERED within twenty-one days, using case
number 1:16-cv-4247, to either (1), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441
and 1446, file a notice of removal along with all of the processes,
paperwork and other filings from the dispossessory proceeding in the
Magistrate Court of Douglas County, or (2) file an amended
complaint which complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 10 by setting
forth in separately numbered paragraphs the factual basis for
Plaintiffs’ claims for relief and by stating in separately enumerated
counts each cause of action, supported by the factual allegations,
asserted against Defendant.
([2] at 9). The Magistrate Judge warned Plaintiffs that failure to comply
with these instructions could result in dismissal. ([2] at 9-10).
2
On December 7, 2016, Eason filed his “Emergency Motion for Entry
to Reconsider Order to Remand Case Back to State Court, Motion to Vacate
Remand Order with Supplemental Jurisdiction and Stay of All Related State
Court Claims Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 1332” [3]. The motion asked the
Magistrate Judge to reconsider and vacate her November 17th Order. On
December 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion. On
March 1, 2017, the Court overruled Eason’s Objection [5] to the Magistrate
Judge’s denial. ([7] (“March 1st Order”). The Court ordered Eason to
“file, on or before March 16, 2017, the supplemental pleadings required by
the Magistrate Judge’s November 17th Order.” ([7] at 5). The Court
cautioned Eason that failure to do so would result in dismissal of this action.
([7] at 5).
On March 15, 2017, Eason filed his Emergency Motion, apparently
seeking to remove a foreclosure action from the Magistrate Court of Douglas
County. ([8] at 2-3). Eason’s Emergency Motion is almost identical to his
initial Complaint, which the Magistrate Judge previously found was
defective, and it fails to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s November 17th
3
Order or the Court’s March 1st Order.2 Eason has not filed “all of the
processes, paperwork and other filings from the dispossessory proceeding in
the Magistrate Court of Douglas County,” and, to the extent his Emergency
Motion is intended as an amended complaint, it clearly violates the
Magistrate Judge’s order to “set[] forth in separately numbered paragraphs
the factual basis for Plaintiffs’ claims for relief and [to] stat[e] in separately
enumerated counts each cause of action, supported by the factual allegations,
asserted against Defendant.” ([2] at 8). Davis, in failing to present any
filings in this action, has declined to participate in this litigation and also is
in violation of the Magistrate Judge’s November 17th Order.
This action is dismissed for failure to comply with a lawful order of
the Court. See LR 41.3(A)(2), NDGa (permitting the court to “dismiss a
civil case for want of prosecution if . . . [a] plaintiff . . . fail[s] or refuse[s] to
obey a lawful order of the court in the case”); see also Brown v. Tallahasse
Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“The district
2
Eason’s motion, like his Complaint, contains “a confusing jumble of legal
and statutory citations” and is difficult to understand. ([2] at 1-2). For example,
although Eason appears to seek removal from state court, he states that “this court
lacks proper jurisdiction to settle this subject matter of wrongful foreclosure.”
([8] at 6). The Emergency Motion also contains long string citations to Georgia
statutes or other authorities, without any meaningful explanation of their relevance.
(See, e.g., [8] at 1).
4
court’s power to dismiss is an inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its
orders and ensure prompt disposition of lawsuits. The court may dismiss an
action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey
a court order.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Trellis Eason’s Emergency
Motion to Set Aside Improper Foreclosure with Injunctive Relief [8] is DENIED
AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Trellis Eason’s Application for
Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [1] is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED this 28th day of April, 2017.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?