Haller v. Department of Housing and Urban Development et al

Filing 90

ORDER denying 84 Motion for TRO; overruling objections to the report & recommendation; adopting Report and Recommendation re 85 . Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 11/25/13. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Daniel L. Haller,
Plaintiff,
vs.
United States Department of Housing
and Urban Development, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
) Case No. 1:11-CV-881
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Daniel R. Haller’s motion for a
restraining order (Doc. No. 84), Magistrate Judge Litkovitz’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. No. 85) recommending that Plaintiff’s motion be denied, and
Plaintiff’s motion to act as filed (Doc. No. 89), which the Court construes as objections
to the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s objections to
the Report and Recommendation are not well-taken and are OVERRULED; the Court
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation; Plaintiff’s motion for a restraining order is
not well-taken and is DENIED.
As summarized by Magistrate Judge Litkovitz, Plaintiff Daniel Haller, proceeding
pro se, filed this lawsuit in December 2011 against a number of governmental,
regulatory and private entities under various federal, constitutional and state common
law provisions. Plaintiff’s claims arose from his unsuccessful efforts to obtain a
mortgage loan modification from mortgage providers and funds from certain mortgage
relief programs, and his challenge to a successful foreclosure action brought against
1

him in state court. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint, only a few of
which Plaintiff responded to. In August 2012 and February 2013, Magistrate Judge
Litkovitz entered Reports and Recommendations (Doc. Nos. 74 & 80) recommending
that the Court grant the motions to dismiss. Plaintiff apparently refused service of the
Reports and Recommendations, see Doc. Nos. 76 & 81, and failed to file objections to
either of Judge Litkovitz’s reports. The Court adopted both of the reports (Doc. No. 75
& 82) and closed this case in March 2013. Doc. No. 83.
On November 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for the Court to restrain any state
action to foreclose on and sell his property. Judge Litkovitz’s Report and
Recommendation concluded that the Court is without jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff relief
because Plaintiff did not appeal from the judgment dismissing his complaint and that
Plaintiff’s motion is otherwise precluded by the Anti-Injunction Act, which generally
prohibits federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings. Plaintiff’s objections do
not address the grounds cited by Judge Litkovitz for denying his motion.
The Court agrees with Judge Litkovitz’s analysis of Plaintiff’s motion. First, as
Judge Litkovitz found, the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits the Court from enjoining state
court proceedings except in circumstances not applicable here. Martingale LLC v. City
of Louisville, 361 F.3d 297, 302 (6th Cir. 2004). Second, Plaintiff in any event is not
entitled to relief in this case for failure to prosecute. As the Court’s summary of the case
demonstrates, Plaintiff generally did not respond to Defendants’ motions to dismiss,
apparently refused service of the Reports and Recommendations and otherwise failed
to object to the Reports and Recommendations, and failed to take any action on his
case for over eight months after it was dismissed by the Court.
2

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and
Recommendation are not well-taken and are OVERRULED; the Court ADOPTS the
Report and Recommendation; Plaintiff’s motion for a restraining order is not well-taken
and is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Date November 25, 2013

s/Sandra S. Beckwith
Sandra S. Beckwith
Senior United States District Judge

3