Maxwell v. Wayne County Treasurer et al

Filing 9

ORDER dismissing Shamrock Defts: Ghina Seblani, Shamrock Investment Group, L.L.C., Gita Sorahpoor, Souheila Bitar and Ray Freedman. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLOTTIA MAXWELL,
Case No.15-12770
Plaintiff,
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
v.
WAYNE COUNTY, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER DISMISSING THE SHAMROCK DEFENDANTS
On August 6, 2015, Plaintiff Charlottia Maxwell filed this pro se lawsuit against the
Wayne County Treasurer, Sharmrock Investment Group, LLC, and several of Shamrock's
individual members (collectively, the "Shamrock Defendants"). Plaintiff's complaint asserts
various causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 stemming from the foreclosure of her
home. Because the Shamrock Defendants are not state actors, the Court must, and does,
dismiss them from this action.
"As courts of limited jurisdiction, federal courts may exercise only those powers
authorized by the Constitution and statute." Fisher v. Peters, 249 F.3d 433, 444 (6th Cir.
2001). Indeed, "[t]he objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any
stage in the litigation . . . . " Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006). The Court
is mindful that a pro se litigant’s complaint is to be construed liberally and is held to “less
stringent standards” than a complaint drafted by counsel. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

519, 520 (1972). Nonetheless, such complaints still must plead facts sufficient to show a
redressable legal wrong has been committed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b).
Here, Plaintiff maintains that the Wayne County Treasurer and the Shamrock
Defendants violated "the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution 5th and
14th amendments . . . ." Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, "an individual may bring a private cause
of action against anyone who, under color of state law, deprives a person of rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or conferred by federal statute."
Wurzelbacher v. Jones–Kelley, 675 F.3d 580, 583 (6th Cir.2012). The Fourteenth
Amendment's Due Process Clause provides that “no State shall . . . deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. "This
Amendment governs only state action, not the actions of private citizens or organizations."
Brown v. Hatch, 984 F. Supp. 2d 700, 707 (E.D. Mich. 2013) (citing Rendell–Baker v. Kohn,
457 U.S. 830, 837-38 (1982)).
The sole allegation in Plaintiff's complaint providing for federal jurisdiction against the
Shamrock Defendants is the contention that they acted in violation of the 5th and 14th
Amendments to the Constitution. Noticeably absent from Plaintiff's complaint, however, is
any allegation that these Defendants--which appear to be a private corporation and its
individual members--were acting under the color of state law. Where, as here, Plaintiff has
failed to assert a plausible jurisdictional hook permitting this Court to exercise its power
over the Shamrock Defendants, it must dismiss all claims against them. See Tahfs v.
Proctor, 316 F.3d 584, 590 (6th Cir. 2003) ("A plaintiff may not proceed under § 1983
against a private party 'no matter how discriminatory or wrongful' the party's conduct.")
(internal citations omitted).
2

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against Shamrock Investment
Group, LLC, Gita Sorahpoor, Ghina Seblani, Souheila Bitar, and Ray Freedman are
hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all Defendants in
this matter with the exception of the Wayne County Treasurer.

SO ORDERED.

S/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: August 26, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on August 26, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Carol J. Bethel
Case Manager

3