Ferreira v. Framingham Housing Authority et al

Filing 22

District Judge Timothy S Hillman: MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER entered granting 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. (Castles, Martin)

United States District Court
District of Massachusetts
__________________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)

CATHERINE FERREIRA.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION
No. 14-40056-TSH

FRAMINGHAM HOUSING AUTHORITY; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT; CCO MORTGAGE; CITIZENS
RBS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
Defendants

)
)
)
________________________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON
DEFENDANTS’ CCO MORTGAGE AND CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
March 12, 2015
HILLMAN, District Judge
Background
Plaintiff, Catherine Ferreira (“Plaintiff”) has filed a Complaint against defendants,
Framingham Housing Authority (“FHA”), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, CCO Mortgage (“CCO”), and Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (“Citizens”) alleging
that Defendants violated banking and lending laws in the serving of her loan and further,
discriminated against her based on her public assistance status. Citizens and CCO filed a motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or in the alternative, a motion for a more definite statement.
For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted.

1 

Facts
Plaintiff, a former recipient of the Section 8 tenant-based housing program administered
by the FHA, was offer the opportunity to participate in the Section 8 Homeownership Program1
in 2002. Plaintiff received preapproval from Citizens Bank in October of 2002 and located at
house at 9 Fairview Road in Westboro, Massachusetts. Working within the constraints of the
Homeownership Program along with the FHA, Plaintiff purchased the house and was granted a
mortgage from Citizens. Plaintiff closed on the purchase December 30, 2002.
Under the most liberal and generous construction, Plaintiff’s complaint offers a detailed
history of her years of dissatisfaction with the servicing of her mortgage, the manner in which
her payments are posted, and alleged hostility shown to her by customer service representatives
at CCO because of her “public assistance status.” The Court can find no facts in the complaint
which suggest any illegal pattern of practice or discriminatory practice on the part of Citizens or
CCO – the facts suggest that Plaintiff still owns her home, is maintaining her mortgage under the
guidelines by which she agreed and although has endured some “red tape” in the process, has not
been subject to anything rising to the level of discrimination.
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the factual allegations in a complaint must
“possess enough heft” to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007). “A case has ‘facial plausibility’ when plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 556). “Plausible, of course, means more than merely possible, and gauging a pleaded
situation’s plausibility is a ‘context-specific’ job that compels [the Court] ‘to draw on’ [its]

1

 On October 12, 2000, the United States Housing and Urban Development Department implemented the 
Homeownership Option, Section 8(y) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended by Section 555 of the 
Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998.  

2 

‘judicial experience and common sense.’” Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Comm., 669
F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2012) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).
Accepting the factual accounts contained in the Complaint as true and drawing all
reasonable inferences in her favor, Plaintiff cannot state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Hyde v. Massachusetts, CIV.A. 04-12429RWZ, 2006 WL 753247, at *2 (D.Mass. Mar.
23, 2006) aff'd sub nom. Hyde v. Massachusetts, 219 F. App’x 20 (1st Cir. 2007) (dismissing
remaining portions of pro se plaintiff’s complaint because the “allegations, which are largely
indecipherable, fail to set forth any cognizable claims for relief.”). Plaintiff’s status as a pro se
litigant neither exempts her from the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, nor entitles her to deference. Overton v. Torruella, 183 F. Supp. 2d 295, 303
(D.Mass. 2001) (dismissing pro se plaintiff’s action for failure to state a claim, noting that “pro
se plaintiffs must comply with the applicable procedural and substantive rules of law, and
dismissal remains appropriate . . . when the complaint fails to even suggest an actionable
claim.”).
Although I am sympathetic to Plaintiff’s situation, I am compelled to apply the laws as
they are written. For that reason, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Timothy S. Hillman ______
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3