Brown v. Lutti et al
Filing
4
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS re 2 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 8/5/2015. "The court grants Brown leave to file an Amended Complaint that cures the deficiencies noted in this order no later than August 25, 2015. Brown may submit another IFP Application at that time. Failure to file an Amended Complaint by August 25, 2015, as well as to pay the applicable filing fee or submit a new I FP Application, will result in the automatic dismissal of this action." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronicall y at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Hamilton Brownserved by first class mail at the address of record on August 5, 2015. A copy of the court's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs form was included in the mailing to Mr. Brown.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
HAMILTON BROWN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HONORABLE ROBERT LUTTI, 814
)
City County Building,
)
Pittsburgh, PA 15219;
)
DEPARTMENT OF COURT RECORDS, )
ALLEGHENY COUNTY; JEREMY
)
KOBESKI; PHELAN HALLINAN
)
DIAMOND & JONES; PENNYMAC
)
MORTGAE INVESTMENT TRUST;
)
MICHAEL TRAINOR; BLANK ROME
)
LLP; ALLEGHENY COUNTY COURT
)
OF COMMON PLEAS; DISCIPLINARY )
BOARD OF THE STATE OF
)
PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )
CIVIL NO. 15-00293 SOM/BMK
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT;
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT; ORDER DENYING
AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
I.
INTRODUCTION.
On August 3, 2015, Plaintiff Hamilton Brown filed the
Complaint in this matter as well as an Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“IFP
Application”).
See ECF Nos. 1 and 2.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2), this court has screened the Complaint and
determined that it fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted.
Accordingly, the court dismisses the Complaint, and
denies the IFP Application as moot.
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
Brown has filed the identical complaint in at least
seven other jurisdictions.
See Civ. No. 15-01660-GPG (D. Colo.
Aug. 4, 2015); Civ. No. 15-22903-FAM (S.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2015);
Civ. No. 3:15-00217-KGB (E.D. Ark. Aug. 3, 2015); Civ. No. 1501180-AVC (D. Conn. Aug. 3, 2015); Civ. No. 6:15-01289-PGB-DAB
(M.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2015); Civ. No. 4:15-00139-HLM (N.D. Ga. Aug.
3, 2015); Civ. No. 5:15-00844-M (W.D. Okla. Aug. 3, 2015).
The facts underlying the Complaint are unclear and do
not meet the required standard, which requires that “factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in
the complaint are true even if doubtful in fact.”
Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)) (internal quotation
marks omitted); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (“the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require
‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”).
“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s
obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to
relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
not do.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
2
The complaint must “state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Id. at 570.
“A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 677.
This case appears to arise out of a Pennsylvania statecourt foreclosure action.
Brown names as defendants (1) the
Honorable Robert Lutti; (2) Department of Court Records,
Allegheny County; (3) Jeremy Kobeski; (4) Phelan Hallinan Diamond
& Jones; (5) Pennymac Mortgae Investment Trust; (6) Michael
Trainor; (7) Blank Rome Llp; (8) Allegheny County Court of Common
Pleas; and (9) Disciplinary Board of the State of Pennsylvania
Supreme Court.
Brown alleges that Pennymac has continued to
litigate against him even though he “won a case” against
Citifinancial, the assignee of Pennymac.
See Complaint ¶¶ 1-2.
According to Brown, he sent Pennymac two payments totaling
$1,500, which also made the Pennymac litigation moot.
¶ 3.
See id.
Brown alleges that Judge Lutti entered a judgment against
him even though Pennymac’s documents were not filed with the
Department of Court Records.
Id.
Brown says he entered into a modification with
“Defendant’s,” but does not specifically identify which
Defendant.
See id. ¶ 4.
The court presumes that Brown is
referring to Pennymac.
3
Brown says that “Defendant’s” “contracted a black bag
firm to harass” him.
Id. ¶ 5.
Brown alleges that Kobeski and the Department of Court
records conspired against him to put into the court record
illegible scans.
Brown alleges that all of these things happened to him
because he is an American Indian.
See id. ¶¶ 1-7.
Brown asserts violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985,
and of the Sioux Treaty of Fort Laramie, 15 Stat. 635.
III.
STANDARD.
To proceed in forma pauperis, Brown must demonstrate
that he is unable to prepay the court fees, and that he
sufficiently pleads claims.
See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1129 (9th Cir. 2000).
The court therefore screens his Complaint to see
whether it is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
IV.
ANALYSIS.
At the outset, this court notes that Brown may want to
consider whether this district is the proper venue for his claims
and whether the court has personal jurisdiction over the
Defendants with respect to the claims, which appear to involve
4
conduct by Pennsylvania citizens in Pennsylvania.
This court is
not, however, dismissing the Complaint on the basis of venue or
lack of personal jurisdiction, which are typically the subject of
affirmative defenses.
Instead, concluding that Brown fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, this court
dismisses his Complaint on that basis.
Brown’s factual allegations are not clear or complete
enough to allow the court to conclude that it asserts any
potentially viable violation of his rights under 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983 and 1985 or the Sioux Treaty of Fort Laramie, 15 Stat.
635.
With respect to many of the Defendants, the Complaint fails
to identify which Defendant did what or why some Defendants are
named as Defendants at all.
To the extent the Complaint
identifies specific actions by particular Defendants, it is not
sufficiently clear how those actions violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983
and 1985 or the Sioux Treaty of Fort Laramie, 15 Stat. 635.
At best, it appears that Brown is unhappy with Judge
Lutti’s rulings in a case, but Brown does not allege facts
demonstrating that Judge Lutti would not have judicial immunity
from those claims.
To the extent Brown is unsatisfied with
quality of the copies of documents in the record in that case, it
is not clear what actionable right is being asserted.
Nor is it
clear why Brown believes actions were taken against him because
of his American Indian status.
Brown’s other factual allegations
5
are similarly so thin that this court cannot decipher what claim
he may be making or why Brown’s rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983
and 1985 or the Sioux Treaty of Fort Laramie have been violated.
Accordingly, the court dismisses the Complaint and
denies the IFP Application as moot.
V.
CONCLUSION.
Brown’s Complaint is dismissed, and the IFP Application
is denied as moot.
The court grants Brown leave to file an
Amended Complaint that cures the deficiencies noted in this order
no later than August 25, 2015.
Brown may submit another IFP
Application at that time.
Failure to file an Amended Complaint by August 25,
2015, as well as to pay the applicable filing fee or submit a new
IFP Application, will result in the automatic dismissal of this
action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, August 5, 2015.
/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge
Brown v. Lutti, et al., Civ. No. 15-00293 SOM/BMK; ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT;
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
6
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?