Spinks v. Lewandowski et al

Filing 16

ORDER: Plaintiff fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted against any defendant. Further amendment of plaintiff's complaint would be futile. Accordingly, defendants' Motions to Dismiss 7 , 9 and 11 are Granted. This case is dismissed. Signed on May 19, 2009 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (cp)

I N THE U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT COURT

F R THE DISTRICT OF OREGON O

JAMES I . SPINKS, Plaintiff,

Civ. N o .

08-6266-AA

OPINION AND ORDER

CHEALSEA S. LEWANDOWSKI, FORD MOTOR CREDIT, a Delaware Corp., HOOPER, ENGLUND and WEIL LLP, CARLA M. FRENCH, and JAMES MURCHISON,
Defendants. Chief Judge:

AIKEN,

On August 2 2 , 2008, p l a i n t i f f f i l e d a " C i v i l ~ o m p l a i n t / S u i ti n Equity." P l a i n t i f f ' s s u i t arises from a d e b t owed by p l a i n t i f f t o

d e f e n d a n t Ford Motor C r e d i t and a w r i t o f g a r n i s h m e n t t o c o l l e c t on

such d e b t f i l e d by i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t Lewandowski, a n a t t o r n e y
w i t h d e f e n d a n t Hooper, Englund and Weil, LLP. Defendants French

and Murchison a r e C i r c u i t C o u r t employees i n Marion County, where

the w r i t o f g a r n i s h m e n t was i s s u e d .

1

-

OPINION AND ORDER

All defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's claims. Defendants argue that plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(6).
I agree.

Further, I find that these deficiencies cannot be cured and that dismissal is required. Essentially, plaintiff alleges that defendants imposed a condition of involuntary servitude and peonage by collecting on a money judgment owed by plaintiff, citing various criminal and civil statutes.

See 18 U.S.C.

§§

241, 1581, 1584; 42 U.S.C.

S 1994.

However, the criminal statutes cited by plaintiff do not authorize a private cause of action by an individual. Buchanan v. Citv of

Bolivar, 99 F.3d 1352, 1357 (6th Cir. 1996); Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989). Moreover, plaintiff does not allege United States v.

that he was forced to work to pay off his debt.

Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 931 (1988); Craine v . Alexander, 756 F.2d
1070 (5thCir. 1985).

Therefore, plaintiff fails to state a claim

for involuntary servitude or peonage. Plaintiff also references a violation of his civil rights, which I liberally construe to be a claim asserted under 42 U.S.C.
§

1983.

Plaintiff does not clarify what right was violated or by

whom.

Regardless, defendants French and Murchison are immune from

suit for their alleged actions in issuing the writ, as those actions were related to the exercise of judicial functions. Morrison v. Jones, 607 F.2d 1269, 1273 (9th Cir. 1979). Likewise,

2

- OPINION AND ORDER

Lewandowskils actions taken in the course of judicial proceedings on behalf of a client are privileged.

See Mantia v. Hanson, 190

Or. App. 412, 417-18, 79 P.3d 404 (2003). Finally, Lewandowski, as a private attorney, and Ford Motor Credit and Hooper, Englund
&

Weil, as private entities, are not "state actors" and cannot be held liable for alleged constitutional violations under 5 1983. Generally, a pro se plaintiff is given the opportunity to amend a complaint and cure any deficiencies identified by the court. However, the deficiencies cannot be cured in this case.

The crux of plaintiff's claim is that it was unlawful for Ford
Motor Credit, through its attorneys, to garnish monies from plaintiff's bank account. Plaintiff is incorrect. To enforce a

money judgment against a debtor, a creditor may pursue various options - including a writ of garnishment - to collect the monies owed.
&g

Or. Rev. Stat. S S 18.602,

1 8 . 6 0 5 (a).

If plaintiff

disagreed that the monies in his bank account were subject to garnishment, plaintiff could

have

challenged

the

writ

of

garnishment in state court.

Or. Rev. Stat. S 18.700.'

Plaintiff

cannot challenge it in this court.

TO the extent plaintiff challenges the money judgment entered against him and in favor of Ford Motor Credit, plaintiff cannot challenge that judgment in this court. Review of a final state court decision by a federal court is prohibited under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine of the United States Supreme Court. Rooker v. Fidelitv Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) ; D.C. Ct. of Axmeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). Instead, plaintiff was required to seek review of the judgment in the Oregon Court of Appeals.

3

-

OPINION AND ORDER

Conclusion Plaintiff fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted against any defendant. complaint would be futile.

Further, amendment of plaintiff's

Accordingly, defendants' Motions to
This case is DISMISSED.

Dismiss (docs. 7, 9, and 11) are GRANTED.

IT IS

SO ORDERED.

Dated this

day of May, 2009.

Ann Aiken United States District Chief Judge

4

- OPINION AND ORDER