White et al v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Service, Inc.
Filing
12
OPINION AND ORDER Granting Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Summarily Dismissing Case. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Sandusky, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JESSE WHITE and KIMBERLY WHITE,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Civil Action No. 15-13317
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING CASE
This matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in forma
pauperis (Dkt. 2) and the Court’s own review of the complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a
district court may authorize the commencement of a civil action without prepayment of the filing
fee provided that the applicant submits an affidavit demonstrating that he or she “is unable to pay
such fees or give security therefor.” After examining Plaintiffs’ application, it is concluded that
they are indigent and that prepayment of the filing fee would cause an undue financial hardship.
Accordingly, the Court grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis, thereby permitting Plaintiffs to
file their Complaint without requiring prepayment of the filing fee.
However, any and all complaints filed by plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis must be
screened and dismissed if they: (i) are frivolous or malicious, (ii) fail to state a claim on which
relief may be granted, or (i) seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines
at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). In this
case, Plaintiffs bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that their mortgage servicer,
Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), wrongfully initiated
foreclosure under color of state law.
The Amended Complaint is summarily dismissed, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),
because Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claim against a private actor does not create subject
matter jurisdiction. See Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982) (“[T]he
conduct allegedly causing the deprivation of a federal right [must] be fairly attributable to the
State.”). Without such a limit, private parties could face constitutional litigation whenever they
seek to rely on a state rule governing their interactions with the community. Id.
Plaintiffs’ claim is precisely the type that is not permitted by cases interpreting § 1983.
Plaintiffs seek to impose liability on a private company, not a state actor, for engaging in private
action. See White v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Syss., 2011 WL 3027768, at *2 (E.D. Mich. July
25, 2011) (acknowledging that MERS is not a state actor). The factual basis for their Amended
Complaint is that MERS relied upon a state statute and filed documents that were “accepted by
the state.” Am. Compl. at 1 (Dkt. 9). But the fact that MERS invoked a state statute when
initiating foreclosure, rightfully or wrongfully, does not somehow make the state complicit in its
actions.
Although Plaintiffs were alerted to these defects in their original complaint and invited to
cure them, see Show Cause Order (Dkt. 8), they have not done so in their Amended Complaint,
which makes substantially the same arguments. Accordingly, because there can be no subject
matter jurisdiction to hear a § 1983 claim against a private actor based upon private conduct,
Plaintiff’s case is dismissed with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 19, 2015
Detroit, Michigan
s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and
any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class
U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on November 19, 2015.
s/Karri Sandusky
Case Manager
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?