BROWN v. U.S. BANK ASSOCIATION
Filing
2
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 11/14/2011. (eaj)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, :
et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
KENDRA BROWN,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-3127 (MLC)
O P I N I O N
THE PLAINTIFF, who is pro se, applies for in-forma-pauperis
relief under 28 U.S.C. § (“Section”) 1915 (“Application”).
entry no. 1, Appl.)
(Dkt.
This Court, based upon the plaintiff’s
financial situation, will (1) grant the Application, and (2) deem
the Complaint to be filed.
The Court may now (1) review the
Complaint, and (2) dismiss it sua sponte if it is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,
or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Court will
dismiss the Complaint, as it is frivolous and fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.
THE PLAINTIFF brings this action (“Federal Action”) pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of her constitutional
rights in a dispute over a mortgage on her property (“Mortgaged
(See dkt. entry no. 1, Compl.)1
Property”).
The Court is able
to discern that (1) a foreclosure action concerning the Mortgaged
Property was instituted in New Jersey Superior Court (“State
Foreclosure Action”), (2) a judgment was entered therein, and (3)
the plaintiff is currently litigating under the State Foreclosure
Action by, inter alia, moving to set aside the aforementioned
judgment.
(See id.)
The plaintiff appears to name a bank
(“Bank”) and the counsel representing that bank (“Bank Counsel”)
as defendants.2
THE PLAINTIFF is attempting to avoid an order in the State
Foreclosure Action.
The proper way to do so is to seek review
through the state appellate process, and then seek certiorari
directly to the United States Supreme Court.
See D.C. Ct. of
Apps. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr.
Co., 263 U.S. 413, 414-16 (1923).
THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE prohibits adjudication of an
action where the relief requested would require a federal court
to either determine whether a state court’s decision is wrong or
1
The plaintiff also has brought an action to recover
damages for violations of her constitutional rights in a dispute
over a mortgage on a different piece of property. See Brown v.
U.S. Bank National Association, No. 11-3123 (D.N.J.).
2
The Office of the Clerk of the Court, on the electronic
docket (1) incorrectly lists the name of the Bank, and (2) does
not list the Bank Counsel as a defendant. Those omissions are
understandable, in view of the manner in which the plaintiff
presents her claims.
2
void that decision, and thus would prevent a state court from
enforcing its orders.
See McAllister v. Allegheny Cnty. Fam.
Div., 128 Fed.Appx. 901, 902 (3d Cir. 2005).
This Court cannot
directly or indirectly review, negate, void, or provide relief
that would invalidate a decision in the State Foreclosure Action.
See Moncrief v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 275 Fed.Appx. 149,
152-53 (3d Cir. 2008) (affirming judgment dismissing claims
concerning state foreclosure action, inter alia, as barred by
Rooker-Feldman doctrine because plaintiff sought redress from
state court judgment); Ayres-Fountain v. E. Sav. Bank, 153
Fed.Appx. 91, 92 (3d Cir. 2005) (instructing district court to
dismiss complaint concerning state foreclosure action under
Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also El Ali v. Litton Loan Serv’g,
217 Fed.Appx. 115, 116 n.1 (3d Cir. 2007) (dismissing appeal from
order that dismissed claims concerning foreclosure action, inter
alia, as barred by Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Shih-Ling Chen v.
Rochford, 145 Fed.Appx. 723, 725 (3d Cir. 2005) (same).
THE FEDERAL ACTION, to the extent that the decisions in the
State Foreclosure Action may be viewed as being final, also is
barred by the doctrine of res judicata.3
Res judicata, or claim
preclusion:
3
The Court may sua sponte address affirmative defenses
when a plaintiff proceeds under Section 1915. Ezekoye v. Ocwen
Fed. Bank, 179 Fed.Appx. 111, 114 (3d Cir. 2005).
3
will bar a suit if (1) the judgment in the first action
is valid, final and on the merits; (2) the parties in
both actions are the same or are in privity with each
other; and (3) the claims in the second action . . .
arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the
claims in the first one.
Sibert v. Phelan, 901 F.Supp. 183, 186 (D.N.J. 1995).
Thus,
under res judicata, a judgment is given “preclusive effect” by
“foreclosing litigation of matters that should have been raised
in an earlier suit”.
Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of
Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 77 n.1 (1984).
As a result, a judgment
“foreclos[es] litigation of a matter that never has been
litigated, because of a determination that it should have been
advanced in an earlier suit”.
Id.
ALL OF THE COMPONENTS of res judicata may be satisfied here,
as (1) the state court in the State Foreclosure Action has issued
an order or a judgment, which is valid, see Flood v. Braaten, 727
F.2d 303, 308 (3d Cir. 1984) (stating judgment that is final and
thus res judicata in one state’s courts will be given full faith
and credit by all other United States courts), (2) the plaintiff
and the Bank are parties to the State Foreclosure Action, and the
Bank Counsel is in privity with the Bank, and (3) the claims in
the Federal Action arise from the same transactions or
occurrences as the claims that were raised, or should have been
raised, in the State Foreclosure Action.
See Moncrief, 275
Fed.Appx. at 153-54 (affirming judgment dismissing claims
4
concerning state foreclosure action, inter alia, as barred by res
judicata); Ezekoye, 179 Fed.Appx. at 113 (dismissing appeal as
frivolous — in federal action concerning state foreclosure
proceeding — from order dismissing claims that were and could
have been raised against bank and its employees, who were not all
parties to state proceeding, based on res judicata); AyresFountain, 153 Fed.Appx. at 92 (noting federal claims concerning
state foreclosure action would be barred by res judicata); see
also El Ali, 217 Fed.Appx. at 116 n.1 (dismissing appeal from
order that dismissed claims concerning state foreclosure action,
inter alia, as barred by res judicata).
THE STATE FORECLOSURE ACTION also may be viewed as ongoing,
as the plaintiff appears to be engaging in litigation therein.
A
federal court must abstain from exercising jurisdiction, pursuant
to the Younger abstention doctrine, when (1) a state court action
is ongoing, (2) important state interests are implicated, and (3)
there is an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims in state
court.
See Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar
Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435 (1982); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,
43-54 (1971).
This Court cannot interfere with the ongoing State
Foreclosure Action.
See Gray v. Pagano, 287 Fed.Appx. 155, 157-
58 (3d Cir. 2008) (dismissing complaint filed in connection to
ongoing state foreclosure action, inter alia, as barred by
Younger abstention); see also El Ali, 217 Fed.Appx. at 116 n.1
5
(dismissing appeal from order that dismissed claims concerning
ongoing state foreclosure action as barred by Younger abstention).
THE COURT ALSO NOTES that the Bank and the Bank Counsel do
not appear to be state actors, and thus any claims asserting
constitutional violations are frivolous.
See Brookhart v. Rohr,
385 Fed.Appx. 67, 68 (3d Cir. 2010) (dismissing appeal from order
that dismissed allegations concerning constitutionally violative
conduct by private parties in state court foreclosure action
because they were not state actors); James v. Heritage Valley
Fed. Credit Union, 197 Fed.Appx. 102, 106 (3d Cir. 2006) (stating
defendant credit union and its employees were not state actors
for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Awala v. Wachovia Corp., 156
Fed.Appx. 527, 528 (3d Cir. 2005) (stating bank is not state
actor merely because it operates within a regulated industry).
42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not cover merely private conduct, no matter
how wrongful.
St. Croix v. Etenad, 183 Fed.Appx. 230, 231 (3d
Cir. 2006).
THE COURT will dismiss the Complaint for the aforementioned
reasons.
The Court will issue an appropriate order and judgment.
s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Dated:
November 14, 2011
6
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?