Ronnie Moore v. Household Realty Corporation

Filing 5

Opinion and Order. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted and this action is dismissed. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 USC 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, re 1 Complaint filed by Ronnie Moore. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 1/9/2012. (M,M) (Main Document 5 replaced on 1/9/2012) (M,M).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

RONNIE MOORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOUSEHOLD REALTY
CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:11 CV 2334
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO

OPINION AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:

Pro se Plaintiff Ronnie Moore filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Household
Realty Corporation, c/o HSBC Consumer Lending Mortgage Services. In the Complaint, Plaintiff
alleges that he was denied due process in a mortgage foreclosure action. He does not specify the
relief he requests from this Court.
Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. That Application is
granted.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s pleading, which is entitled “Complaint and Affidavit of Denial of Right to Due
Process and Trial De Novo In Admiralty,” is comprised entirely of legal rhetoric. There are very

few discernable factual allegations in the document.
Plaintiff states he brings the matter before this Court because Defendant and its counsel
perpetrated a fraud on the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. He contends “evidence to
the contrary must be presented in open court in an evidentiary hearing to disprove the contrary.”
(ECF No. 1 at 1.) He indicates he was not notified of documents “supporting answers or finding
of facts or conclusions of law granting dismissal” in favor of the Defendant without being heard in
open court. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) He asserts that summary judgment cannot be granted without a
hearing and proper identification “challenged with prima facie evidence” presented to this Court
alleging federal violations. He alleges the Defendants have not entered evidence that they are not
in violation of federal law.
In response, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 3). In the Motion,
Defendant contends Plaintiff is seeking to challenge foreclosure proceedings that were completed
in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case Nos. CV-10-722842 and CV-11-752292.
Defendant claims it filed a foreclosure action against Plaintiff in March 2010. Plaintiff filed an
Answer and Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court granted the Motion on
November 10, 2010. The case was stayed for a period of time due to Chapter 7 bankruptcy
proceedings. The decision in the foreclosure action became final on May 9, 2011. Plaintiff filed
an Appeal to the Eighth District Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court’s judgment on July
25, 2011.
While the first case was still pending, Defendants indicated Plaintiff filed a Complaint
against Defendant in the Court of Common Pleas. Again, Defendant moved for summary judgment.
The Court granted the Motion on September 22, 2011 on the ground that the action was barred by
-2-

the doctrine of res judicata.
Plaintiff has now filed the within action objecting to the foreclosure action. The Defendant
asserts this action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiff has not responded to the
Motion to Dismiss.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Motion to Dismiss
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the district court may dismiss a
case under Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir.
1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A cause of action fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks “plausibility in the complaint.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007). A pleading must contain a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct.
1937, 1949 (2009). The factual allegations in the pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to
relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the Complaint are
true. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. The Plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual
allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. A pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation
of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading standard. Id. In reviewing a
Complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo
v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir.1998).
-3-

Res Judicata
To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to litigate a new matter already decided by the state
courts, this case is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. A federal court must give a state court
judgment the same preclusive effect it would have in the courts of the rendering state. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1738; Dubuc v. Green Oak Township, 312 F.3d 736, 744 (6th Cir. 2002). The preclusive effect
of the previous state court judgments are therefore governed by Ohio law on preclusion. Id. Under
Ohio law, an existing final judgment or decree is conclusive as to all claims which were or might
have been litigated in the first lawsuit. National Amusement, Inc. v. Springdale, 53 Ohio St. 3d 60,
62 (1990). The doctrine of res judicata requires a plaintiff to present every ground for relief in the
first action he files, or forever be barred from asserting it. Id. The purpose of this doctrine is to
promote the finality of judgments and thereby increase certainty, discourage multiple litigation, and
conserve judicial resources. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980).
Defendant contends that the within federal court action arises entirely out of the civil action
Plaintiff filed against Defendant in state court, which in turn, was filed solely to challenge the
judgment of foreclosure. The Ohio courts have already determined that Plaintiff defaulted on his
mortgage and the civil action filed to challenge the foreclosure was barred by the doctrine of res
judicata. This court is bound to give full faith and credit to the decisions of those courts.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction
To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to challenge the state court judgments against him, this
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this matter. Federal courts are always "under
an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction," FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493
-4-

U.S. 215, 231(1990) and may not entertain an action over which jurisdiction is lacking. See
Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 701 (1982).
United States District Courts do not have jurisdiction over challenges to state court
decisions, even if those challenges allege that the state court’s action was unconstitutional. See
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483 n. 16 (1983); Rooker v.
Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). Federal appellate review of state court judgments
can only occur in the United States Supreme Court, by appeal or by writ of certiorari. Id. Under
this principle, generally referred to as the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, a party losing his case in state
court is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in
a United States District Court based on the party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates his
or her federal rights. Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994). Federal jurisdiction
cannot be invoked merely by couching the claims in terms of a civil rights action. Lavrack v. City
of Oak Park, No. 98-1142, 1999 WL 801562 *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 28, 1999); see also Valenti v.
Mitchell, 962 F.2d 288, 296 (3d Cir.1992).
The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has applied two elements to a RookerFeldman analysis. First, in order for the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to apply to a claim presented in
federal district court, the issue before the court must be inextricably intertwined with the claim
asserted in the state court proceeding. Catz v. Chalker, 142 F.3d 279, 293 (6th Cir. 1998); see Tropf
v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., 289 F.3d 929, 937 (6th Cir. 2002). “Where federal relief
can only be predicated upon a conviction that the state court was wrong, it is difficult to conceive
the federal proceeding as, in substance, anything other than a prohibited appeal of the state court
judgment.” Catz, 142 F.3d at 293. Second, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes a district
-5-

court’s jurisdiction where the claim is a specific grievance that the law was invalidly or
unconstitutionally applied in plaintiff’s particular case as opposed to a general constitutional
challenge to the state law applied in the state action. Id.; Tropf, 289 F.3d at 937.
Although Plaintiff brings the present action against the mortgage company, the substance
of his pleading, at best, appears to be that the state court improperly granted summary judgment in
favor of Defendant in the foreclosure action and improperly granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
in the civil action. He contends he did not receive proper notice and the judgments were not based
on sufficient evidence. All of the allegations in these causes of action concern specific grievances
that the law was incorrectly applied to plaintiff’s case, and are clearly predicated on his belief that
the state courts were mistaken in rendering their decisions against him. Any review of the
constitutional claims asserted in this context would require the court to review the specific issues
addressed in the state court proceedings against him. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
to conduct such a review. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483-84 n. 16; Catz, 142 F.3d at 293.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted (ECF No. 2),
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 3) is granted and this action is dismissed. The Court
certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken
in good faith.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

1

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not
taken in good faith.
-6-

S/Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge
1/9/2012

-7-