Cade v. Chase Bank Mortgage Co. et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 8/18/2015. (c/m 8/18/2015 aos, Deputy Clerk)

--nr

-'-

FILED
ENTERED
LOGGED -.p::!!... RECEIVED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ERIC CADE,

*

v

*

CHASE BANK MORTGAGE CO., et aI.,

AT GREENB-.-CLERK, U.S. DISTR,8'T CO
BY
DISTRICT OF MARYLANgRT
DEPUTY

*

PlaintilT

AUG 1 7 2015

*

Defendants

Civil Action No. GJH-15-2352

*

***
MEMORANDUM
The above-captioned Complaint was filed on August 10, 2015, together with a Motion to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis. The Complaint concerns Plaintiffs

allegation that foreclosure

proceedings have been improperly initiated against Plaintiffs property by the named Defendants.
ECF I. The foreclosure proceeding is currently pending in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
See 0 'Sullivan v. Cade, Case Number 24013003240.1

[n light of the fact that a case is pending

in another forum, this Court cannot accept jurisdiction over the claims raised in the Complaint.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the state court proceedings or seeks declaratory
relief regarding rights to the property at issue, this Court may not grant "an injunction to stay the
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."
Where the Anti-Injunction

S 2283.

Act bars injunctive relief, issuance of a declaratory judgment that

would have the same elTcct as an injunction is also unavailable.
V.S. 66, 73 (1971) (declaratory
injunction).

28 V.S.c.

See Samuels v. Mackel/, 40 I

relief has virtually the same practical impact as a formal

Additionally, where equitable relief is sought regarding property that is already the

subject of an ongoing in rem action in another court, the Court controlling the property for

I

See http://cascscarch.couns.statc.md.us/inquiry

purposes of the earlier-filed suit has exclusive jurisdiction over the property. See Princess Lida
of Thurn & Taxis v. Thompson, 305 U.S. 456, 466, 59 S.Ct. 275, 83 L.Ed. 285 (1939) (the
jurisdiction of the second court must yield to the court where the matter was first pending).
In addition, foreclosure actions brought under state law do not give rise to federal
question subject-matter jurisdiction.

See McNeely v. Moab Tiara Cherokee Kiluwah Nation

Chief 2008 WL 4166328 (W.O. N.C 2008). To the extent Plaintiff believes the claims asserted
constitute a viable defense to the foreclosure action, they may be raised in the context of that
case.
To the extent Plaintiff intends to bring his Complaint under the civil rights statute, his
claim likewise fails. In order to successfully assert a claim of constitutional rights violation, the
Defendant must be a state actor. Specifically, the persons charged with the civil rights violation
must be a state official; someone who has acted with a state official; someone who has obtained
significant aid from a state official; or someonc whose conduct is somehow attributable to the
state.

In limited circumstances,

S 1983

suit.

however, seemingly private conduct can be the subject of a

"[W]e have recognized four exclusive circumstances under which a private party

can be deemed to be a state actor: (I) when the state has coerced the private actor to commit an
act that would be unconstitutional

if done by the state; (2) when the state has sought to evade a

clear constitutional duty through delegation to a private actor; (3) when the state has delegated a
traditionally

and exclusively

committed an unconstitutional

public function to a private actor; or (4) when the state has
act in the course of enforcing a right of a private citizen."

DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F. 3d 499, 507 (4th Cir. 1999). None of the acts or conduct alleged in
the complaint fall within the four categories of conduct potcntially attributable to the state. "If the
conduct docs not fall into one of these four categories, then the private conduct is not an action

of the state." Andrews v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta, 998 F.2d 214,217 (4th Cir.1993).
The Complaint must be dismissed?
A separate Order follows

g /1g-/;xo (5

Date /

/:&--;L

GEORGE 1. HAZEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff lists a host of federal causes of action in the caption of the Complaint. ECF I, p. I. He fails however to
explain how the named Defendants violated any of the listed statutory provisions. At base, Plaintiff, as noted, is
attempting to stop state foreclosure proceedings by invoking this Court's limited jurisdiction.
2