Marie-Dessisso El Bey et al v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: As the 10/28/2015 and 11/5/2015 submission has not alleged any facts or arguments sufficient to warrant relief from the Court's 9/28/2015 Order, the 7 motion is denied. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. SO ORDERED by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 11/12/2015. C/mailed. (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)

.. -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-~

---------------------------------------------------------)(

cR·:.•.>KLYi·~ OFAC~

":Angela Marie-Dessisso:el Bey in Propria
Persona, Sui Juris Authorized
Representative ARR UCC 1-2071308, UCC
1-103. Ex Relatione: ANGELA M
DESSISSO "; and ":Kemel-Dessisso:Bey in
Propria Persona, Sui Juris Authorized
Representative ARR UCC 1-2071308, UCC
1-103. Ex Relatione: KEVIN R. DESSISSO,"

NOV 2 5 2015

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
15-CV-5152 (WFK)

Plaintiffs,
-againstJP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.;
JAMES DIMON, CEO, JP Morgan Chase
Bank, N.A.; FEIN, SUCH & CRANE, LLP;
MARK K. BROYLES, Esq.; CRAIG K.
BEIDEMAN, Esq.; DAVID P. CASE, Esq.,
Attorneys for JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------)(
WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge:
On October 28, 2015 and then again on November 5, 2015, "Angela Marie-Dessisso:El
Bey In Propria Persona" and "Kemel-Dessisso:Bey In Propria Persona," calling themselves
"Claimaints," filed papers in Docket Number 15-CV-5152-WFK-SMG. That docket number
was closed by this Court's September 28, 2015 Order remanding the deficient Notice of Removal
to state court, as this Court does not have jurisdiction over the foreclosure proceeding that forms
the subject of the action. This instant filing is captioned in part as a "Rebuttal" and seeks to
"void" and "expunge from the record" the "defective writ and deem it a nullity regarding Civil
Case# 1:15-cv-05152-WFK-SMG." (ECF # 7, pp. 2, 3.) It also renews the request to remove

,,.

Index# 16631/2011 from state court to federal court. (ECF # 7, p. 2.) An "Exhibit '004"' is
captioned as a separate complaint, naming new defendants, including the undersigned, but it is
not accompanied by a separate filing fee or a request to proceed in forma pauper is. The
submission is hereby construed as a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As "Claimants" have failed to offer any reason to reconsider
the Court's September 28, 2015 Order, the motion is hereby denied.
The instant submission offers a line-by-line "rebuttal" to the Court's Order, including
complaints about the Order's references to the parties' names and designation as prose. (ECF #
7, pp. 4-5.) It asserts that these references "trafficked two separate and distinct Moorish
American nationals ... from their declared Proper Person at law status, without their knowledge
and agreement of this action, into a fictitious entity to assume jurisdiction over and rule on as he
wishes." (ECF # 7, p. 13.) On the one hand, the submission asserts that this Court has
jurisdiction over the underlying foreclosure action "under diversity of citizenship as Moorish
American Nationals domiciled on our ancestral estate North America, and not citizens of the
state in which the action is brought." (ECF # 7, p. 7.) In the next paragraph, it asserts that "[t]his
court does not have jurisdiction over us, nor does it have subject matter jurisdiction." (Id.) The
latter claim is repeated in the conclusion of the document: "This District Court does not have
personam jurisdiction and neither has subject matter jurisdiction. This case is to be dismissed
based on the evidence provided." (ECF # 7, p. 13.)
The latter assertion is correct. Docket No. 15-CV-5212 was dismissed because this Court
does not have jurisdiction over this action, either as a removal of the state foreclosure proceeding
or as a stand-alone complaint. The original submission sought "removal of this case from the
2

.

.

STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT." (ECF # 1, p. 3.) (emphasis in submission). The
only referenced case was Index No. 16631/2011, a foreclosure action filed in 2011, in which
Kevin R. Dessiso and Angela M. Dessisso were said to have appeared. (ECF # 1, p. 6, Order
Granting Summary Judgment & Reference in Mortgage Foreclosure signed by the Honorable
Darrell L. Gavrin, Justice of the New York Supreme Court, Queens County.) As the Court
previously explained, federal court consideration of the foreclosure proceeding is barred by the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Niles v. Wilshire Inv. Group, LLC, 859 F. Supp. 2d 308, 334
(E.D.N.Y. 2012) ("[C]ourts in this Circuit have consistently held that any attack on a judgment of
foreclosure is clearly barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine." (quotation marks omitted)). The
recent submission offers no reason for this Court to reconsider its September 28, 2015 Order
remanding the action to state court. To the extent that "Claimants" seek relief from the
September 28, 2015 Order, the motion is denied.
CONCLUSION
As the October 28, 2015 and November 5, 2015 submission has not alleged any facts or
arguments sufficient to warrant relief from the Court's September 28, 2015 Order, the motion is
denied. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order
would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of
an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-~
SO ORDERED.

/S/ Judge William F. Kuntz, II
WILLIAM F. KUNT~
United States Distnct Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
November 1 r-, 2015
3