Williams v. Crawford et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying as moot 14 Motion to Dismiss; granting 24 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

OTIS WILLIAMS, III,
Case No. 14-13240
Plaintiff,
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
ARTHUR J. TARNOW

v.
TIMOTHY CRAWFORD ET AL,

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DAVID R. GRAND

Defendant.
/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
AND MOTION TO DISMISS [24], DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS [14]

On August 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging negligence,
gross negligence, willful misconduct and conspiring to fraudulently transfer assets.
Defendant Johnson’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion to Dismiss
[24] was filed on July 9, 2015 and Defendant Orlan’s Motion to Dismiss filed on
April 30, 2015. Plaintiff has not responded to either motion.

For

the

reasons

stated below, Defendant Johnson’s Motion for Dismissal and Judgment on the
Pleadings [24] is GRANTED, and Defendant Orlans’ Motion to Dismiss [14] is
DENIED AS MOOT.
1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2012, the property located at 16400 North Park Drive in Southfield was
defaulted on by owner Claudia Myree before her death in April 2012. In
September 2012, JP Morgan Chase initiated foreclosure proceedings on the home
and in May 2013 the sheriff’s deed became operative and vested all interest in and
title to the property to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. In June 2013,
Federal Home Mortgage Corporation sent the occupants of the property a notice to
vacate the property and Doshia Banks, an occupant, refused to vacate, claiming
that she rented the property from Myree. After the home was foreclosed, Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation filed an action to quiet title, which was granted,
and an action to recover possession of property, which resulted in a judgment of
possession in favor of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. These judicial
decisions are the basis for Williams’ claims against Defendant Judge Johnson who
presided over those matters in the 46th District Court.
ANALYSIS
Defendant Johnson moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) permits sua sponte
dismissals of suits over which the District Courts do not have subject matter

2

jurisdiction over. See Rauch v. Day and Night Mfg. Corp., 576 F.2d 697, 701 (6th
Cir.1978).
Plaintiff’s complaint raises various claims, including negligence, gross
negligence, willful misconduct, and conspiring to fraudulently transfer assets.
Plaintiffs cites Oklahoma State law for these claims, so these claims all are framed
as torts and arise under state law rather than federal law. The complaint states that
the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, all of
Plaintiff’s claims arise under state law and do not involve a federal question. The
complaint does not allege any claims that establish a basis for federal jurisdiction.
Plaintiff has not responded to either Motion to Dismiss and has not addressed the
various deficiencies in his complaint, which also fails to state a claim and never
names Defendant Orlans at all in any of the allegations. Based on the facts as
presented in the complaint, this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has failed to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction
over his claims.
Accordingly,

3

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Johnson’s Motion for Dismissal and
Judgment on the Pleadings [24] is GRANTED, and Defendant Orlans’ Motion to
Dismiss [14] is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2015

s/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge

4