Suffie Dumeus et al v Citi Mortgage Inc

Filing 5

Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER(PSSA 5)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
__________________________________________
)
SAME SUFFIE DUMEUS a/k/a
)
SAMMY S. DUMEUS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
Civil Action No.
v.
)
18-10339-FDS
)
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SAYLOR, J.
I.

Introduction
This is the second virtually identical civil action concerning plaintiff’s mortgage

foreclosure. Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, the Court will: (1) allow the motion to
proceed in forma pauperis; and, (2) dismiss the complaint under principles of claim preclusion.
II.

Background
On March 6, 2018, pro se plaintiff Same-Suffie Dumeus filed this action on a civil

complaint form against defendant Citimortgage, Inc., for its alleged “wrongful denial of the loan
modification.” 1 Attached to the form is a complaint that is virtually identical to that previously
filed in Dumeus v. Citimortgage, Inc., 13-12016-GAO. Compare Dumeus v. Citimortgage, Inc.,
18-10339-FDS, ECF No. 1, pp. 6-30, with Dumeus v. Citimortgage, Inc., 13-12016-GAO, ECF
No. 1. In the prior action, Judge O’Toole ordered Dumeus to amend the complaint because of

1

The Court presumes that Yves Joseph was improperly named as a plaintiff in this action where the
complaint form identified only Dumeus and is not signed by Joseph. Moreover, Joseph was dismissed as a party in
the earlier filed, identical action based upon the representation by Dumeus that Joseph had no interest in the
property. Dumeus v. Citimortgage, Inc., 13-12016-GAO, ECF Nos. 7 and 9.

pleading defects and jurisdictional concerns. After counsel appeared, the complaint was
amended, and Citimortgage filed a motion to dismiss. Judge O’Toole granted the motion to
dismiss, and judgment of dismissal entered. Dumeus v. Citimortgage, Inc., 13-12016-GAO, ECF
Nos. 23, 28 and 29. Along with her complaint in this action, Dumeus filed a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis.
III.

Discussion
A.

The Court Will Grant the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

The Court will allow the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must screen the complaint prior to issuing a
summons of Citimortgage, and dismiss the action if it is frivolous or fails to state claim upon
which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
B.

The Action Will Be Dismissed under the Doctrine of Claim Preclusion

The doctrine of claim preclusion provides that, “a final judgment on the merits of an
action precludes the parties or their privies from re-litigating claims that were raised or could
have been raised in that action.” Hatch v. Trail King Indus., Inc., 699 F.3d 38, 45 (1st Cir.
2012)(quoting Apparel Art Int'l, Inc. v. Amertex Enters. Ltd., 48 F.3d 576, 583 (1st Cir.1995). It
“relieves parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserves judicial resources, and
encourages reliance on adjudication.” Hatch, 699 F.3d at 45 (alterations and quotations omitted).
The elements of claim preclusion are satisfied where there is “(1) a final judgment on the merits
in an earlier suit, (2) sufficient identicality between the causes of action asserted in the earlier
and later suits, and (3) sufficient identicality between the parties in the two suits. Id.
All of the elements of claim preclusion are satisfied: final judgment entered in the prior
action on January 29, 2015; the original complaint in the prior action and this action are

2

identical; and the parties are identical. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action under
principles of claim preclusion. 2
IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is allowed, and

the action is hereby DISMISSED. The clerk shall enter a separate order of dismissal.
So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge

Dated: March 29, 2018

2

A sua sponte dismissal is appropriate because “it is crystal clear that the plaintiff cannot prevail and that
amending the complaint would be futile.” Chute v. Walker, 281 F.3d 314, 319 (1st Cir. 2002)..

3