Weaver-Sergile v. Blue Mountain Homes LLC

Filing 6

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered denying 2 Motion emergency injunction; denying 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. This action is dismissed. (PSSA, 3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-13426-PBS
JEANETTE ANN WEAVER-SERGILE,
Plaintiff,
v.
BLUE MOUNTAIN HOMES LLC, et al.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEARNS, D.J.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court (1) denies the plaintiff’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis; and (2) dismisses this action.
I.

Background
On August 21, 2014, Jeanette Ann Weaver-Sergile filed a self-prepared complaint,

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and an emergency motion for an order preventing
the defendants from evicting her on August 22, 2014.
In the complaint, the plaintiff indicates that she has been involved in litigation with the
defendants in the courts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts concerning her interest in the
real property situated at 48 Hillside Avenue in Lynn, Essex County, Massachusetts. The exhibits
to her complaint indicate that the state housing court (docket # 13H77SP03096) entered a
judgment evicting her from the property and that on August 13, 2014, the Essex Superior Court
also found that she did not have a possessory interest in said property and that her continued
occupancy of the property constituted an illegal trespass. The court ordered that Weaver-Sergile
vacate the premises on or before August 16, 2014 at 5pm. The court also ordered that in the
event Weaver-Sergile did not vacate the premises by that date, Blue Mountain Homes LLC
would be “entitled to have [Weaver-Sergile] and those residing with her or claiming any interest
in said premises through her physically removed as trespassers upon said premises by the Lynn
Police Department or Essex Deputy Sheriffs.” Compl. Ex. at 2-3 (docket entry #1-1 at 2-3)

(8/13/2014 docket sheet of Blue Mountain Homes LLC v. Sergile, ESCV2014-00847 (Essex
Superior Court)). The docket also indicates that the same day, Weaver-Sergile filed a
“Challenge of Jurisdiction and Fraud, Challenge of Subject Matter” with the Superior Court.
She indicates in her complaint that there has been no response to this filing. In her emergency
motion, the plaintiff represents that she is going to be evicted from the property tomorrow
morning by law enforcement.
In the body of the complaint, the plaintiff purports to bring a “criminal complaint” under
22 C.F.R. § 93.1-93.2, 28 U.S.C. § 1330, the Eleventh Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and claims for “Challenge of Jurisdiction not Answered” and “Estoppel of All
Actions till Jurisdiction is Answered.” She appears to claim that she was denied due process in
the state court proceedings, that her name is being unlawfully used, and that laws and regulations
concerning the filing of lawsuits against a foreign state and other actions in the United States
were not followed in the state court proceedings. Portions of her complaint are very difficult to
comprehend.
II.

Discussion
A.

Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Although the plaintiff represents that she is without income or assets, the Court must
deny the motion because the plaintiff did not sign it.
B.

The Complaint and the Emergency Motion

The Court will dismiss the complaint and deny the emergency motion because the
plaintiff has not set forth any basis for the Court to interfere with the state court action. To the
extent that the Court even has jurisdiction to consider a legal claim that would stop the execution
of a state court judgment, the plaintiff has not set forth any cognizable claim for relief. The
statutes and regulations that she cites are irrelevant and indicate a misunderstanding of the
relationship between state and federal law and their respective judicial systems. Further, the
plaintiff’s allegations of fraud and misconduct are entirely conclusory.
2

In addition, it does not appear that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain her claims. To
the extent that she is asking the Court to interfere in ongoing state court proceedings, the Court
will abstain from exercising jurisdiction. See Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Lopez–Freytes, 522 F.3d
136, 143 (1st Cir.2008) (“In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, interests of comity and
the respect for state processes demand that federal courts should abstain from interfering with
ongoing state judicial proceedings.”) To the extent that she is challenging a final judgment of a
state court, this Court is without jurisdiction entertain such a claim. See Exxon Mobile Corp. v.
Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291-92 (2005) (district courts cannot exercise appellate
jurisdiction over state court judgments).
III.

Conclusion
Accordingly:
1.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.

2.

This motion for emergency relief is DENIED.

3.

This action is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.
8/21/2014
DATE

/s/ Richard G. Stearns
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3