Carson et al v. Deutsch Bank National Trust Co.
Filing
4
Memorandum of Opinion and Order. Plaintiffs' Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Related doc # 2 ) is granted. Plaintiffs' Motion for temporary restraining order (Related doc # 3 ) is denied and 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. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 4/14/2014. (H,CM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLIFFORD CARSON
VALERIE D. CARSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DEUTSCH BANK NATIONAL TRUST
CO.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:14 CV 784
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
On April 10, 2014, pro se Plaintiffs Clifford Carson and Valerie D. Carson filed this in
forma pauperis action against Defendant Deutsch Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsch”)
under 18 U.S.C § 1002. Plaintiffs allege they are defendants in a pending eviction action in the
Bedford Municipal Court filed by Deutsch, and that Deutsch improperly obtained a judgment of
foreclosure on the subject property. See, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Butts, Cuy.
Cty. Ct. of Comm. Pls. No. CV-12-786827, http://cpdocket.cp.cuyahogacounty.us. Plaintiffs ask
this Court to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and for a temporary restraining order to prevent
their eviction.
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,
365 (1982) (per curiam), the district court is required to dismiss an action under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis
in law or fact.1 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th
Cir. 2010).
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks
“plausibility in the complaint.” Bell At. 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, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (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. Twombly, 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, 556 U.S. at 678 (2009). 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.
Plaintiffs have not set forth a plausible basis for this Court to vacate the Ohio court’s
foreclosure judgment. Section 1001 is “nothing more than a bare criminal statute, with
1
An in forma pauperis claim may be dismissed sua sponte, without prior notice to the plaintiff
and without service of process on the defendant, if the court explicitly states that it is
invoking section 1915(e) [formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)] and is dismissing the claim for one
of the reasons set forth in the statute. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Smith, 507 F.3d 910,
915 (6th Cir. 2007); Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 261 (6th Cir. 1990); Harris v.
Johnson, 784 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1986).
-2-
absolutely no indication that civil enforcement of any kind was available to anyone.”2 Cort v.
Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 79–80, (1975); see also Abou -Hussein v. Gates, 657 F.Supp.2d 77, 81
(D.D.C.2009)(“[P]laintiff's claims of fraud or false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 ... are ...
barred because th[is] criminal statute[ ] do[es] not expressly create a private right of action upon
which plaintiff may sue defendants.”), aff'd, 2010 WL 2574084 (D.C.Cir., June 11, 2010).
Further, the abstention doctrine in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), precludes this Court’s
intervention in the Bedford Heights forcible entry and detainer case. See, e.g., Angalet v.
Housing Authority of Ashland, 2013 WL 5411401, *2 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 26, 2013).
Therefore, even construing the Complaint liberally in a light most favorable to the
Plaintiffs, Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 924 (6th Cir. 2008), it does not contain allegations
reasonably suggesting they might have a valid claim against this Defendant.
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order is denied, 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: April 14, 2014
2
Section 1001 provides the definition of terms set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1002.
-3-
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?