BALLERING v. STATE OF UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM re: #1 Complaint ; #2 Amended Complaint. See order filed as a separate entry. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JENNIFER P. WILSON ON 2/17/2021. 2/17/2021 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(EDLEBLUTE, VICTORIA)
Case 2:21-cv-00069-JPW Document 5 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SCOTT LYNN BALLERING,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF UTAH ATTORNEY
GENERAL, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 2:21-CV-00069
Judge Jennifer P. Wilson
MEMORANDUM
This is a civil case in which Plaintiff Scott Lynn Ballering (“Ballering”)
brings claims against several government actors, private companies, and court
personnel arising from alleged wrongdoing during the sale of a property located in
Utah. For the reasons that follow, the case is dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case began on January 3, 2021, when Ballering, who is proceeding
without counsel, filed a complaint and an amended complaint, which appear to be
identical copies of the same document. (See Docs. 1–2.) The amended complaint
names as defendants the Attorney General for the State of Utah, the Insurance
Department of Utah’s Attorney General’s office, the Attorney General for the State
of Washington, the “Federal Department” of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
1
Case 2:21-cv-00069-JPW Document 5 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 6
(“FBI”), the Southern Utah Title Company, and all judges and court employees of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (Doc. 2.)
According to the allegations in the amended complaint, Ballering was
attempting to sell a house located in Hurricane, Utah when he discovered that the
house had not been built according to “National Building Codes.” (Id. at 3.) Upon
his discovery of this information, the prospective buyers of the house, the
Hendersons, “chose to cancel the purchase by using a form that was from the
Realtor Association of Utah.” (Id.) The form used by the Hendersons was
intended for use by professional realtors and was not intended for use in sales
conducted by homeowners, like the sale in question in this case. (Id.)
Additionally, the form “was not a cancellation form.” (Id.)
Ballering alleges that the Hendersons never presented him with a
cancellation form and he “never signed the form.” (Id.) Nevertheless, the escrow
officer who was involved in the sale “provided the Henderson’s [sic] with the form
and then did activities like a Realtor would normal[ly] do,” which included
emailing the form to Ballering. (Id.) Ballering “confronted” the escrow officer
about her role in the sale, and the escrow officer said that she “was just helping”
the Hendersons. (Id.)
Ballering reported the actions of the Hendersons and the escrow officer to
the Utah Attorney General’s office and the Insurance Department of the Utah
2
Case 2:21-cv-00069-JPW Document 5 Filed 02/17/21 Page 3 of 6
Attorney General’s office. (Id.) He additionally reported it to the FBI via an
online form and later in person in an FBI field office in Portland, Oregon. (Id.)
Upon receiving Ballering’s complaint, the Insurance Department solicited
affidavits from the Hendersons and the escrow officer, but not from Ballering.
(Id.) Ballering alleges that the signatures from him and the Hendersons “do not
match the signatures of other documents signed in the same period.” (Id.)
After filing complaints with Utah law enforcement officers and the FBI,
Ballering also requested “assistance” from the Attorney General of Washington
State, as he was then residing in that state. (Id.) Days before Ballering was
scheduled to meet with the Washington Attorney General, however, the Attorney
General “abruptly canceled” the meeting. (Id.) Ballering speculates that the
meeting was canceled because the Washington Attorney General “is also a
Mormon.” (Id.) Ballering alleges that Defendant Southern Utah Title Company
was not registered to perform escrow work in Utah at the time of the sale of the
house. (Id.)
In addition to suing the defendants located in Utah and Washington,
Ballering also names as defendants “all other judges and court employees” of the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (Id. at 1.) This claim is based on “[l]ack of
performance for judges that do not prosecute in their own courts or transfer cases
to other states for local prosecution & all court employees for not upholding the
3
Case 2:21-cv-00069-JPW Document 5 Filed 02/17/21 Page 4 of 6
laws of the land.”1 (Id.) Ballering also alleges the existence of “[a]n inept lazy
judge that closed the case without properly investigating the charges by simply
looking at the evidence or has personal interest to protect, or is guilty of the one or
more of the seven deadly sins or religious differences, sexual orientation
differences or philosophical differences or can not ask for assistance to download
the evidence or whatever the reason” and alleges “[d]iscrimination.” (Id. at 4.) By
way of remedies, Ballering seeks “100,000,000 in fines distributed between all
defendants” and a series of other punitive measures against the defendants. (Id.)
The case was assigned to the undersigned pursuant to a designation under 28
U.S.C. § 292(b).
DISCUSSION
A district court is continually obligated to review whether it has subject
matter jurisdiction and must raise subject matter jurisdiction issues sua sponte.
Fort Bend Cty., Tex. v. Davis, 587 U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. 1843, 1849 (2019). “If the
court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must
dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
1
This allegation appears to refer to two earlier cases in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in
which Ballering also raised claims arising from the sale of the home in Hurricane, Utah, both of
which were transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Utah. See Ballering
v. State of Utah, No. 2:20-CV-06196 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2021); Ballering v. State of Utah Office
of Att’y Gen., No. 2:20-CV-06332 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2021).
4
Case 2:21-cv-00069-JPW Document 5 Filed 02/17/21 Page 5 of 6
A district court’s subject matter jurisdiction must be based on either federal
question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331–32. A
district court has federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under
the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A court
has diversity jurisdiction when the parties are citizens of different states and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity between the
parties must be complete, which means that, “unless there is some other basis for
jurisdiction, ‘no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant.’”
Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 104 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting
Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 419 (3d Cir. 2010)).
The court does not have diversity jurisdiction in this case because Ballering
is a resident of the State of Washington and names the Attorney General of that
state as a defendant, see Doc. 1 at 1, thereby defeating complete diversity between
the parties. Accordingly, the court may only exercise subject matter jurisdiction if
federal question jurisdiction is present.
Ballering alleges that federal question jurisdiction is present because of
Defendants’ “[f]ailure to properly investigate and enforce Copyright & Forgery
laws and failure to enforce NMLS license requirements for Southern Utah Title
Company,” but does not allege any facts to support these allegations. (See Doc. 1
at 2.) To the contrary, all of the claims in Ballering’s complaint appear to arise
5
Case 2:21-cv-00069-JPW Document 5 Filed 02/17/21 Page 6 of 6
from alleged wrongdoing during a real estate sale. (See id.) These claims may be
framed as breach of contract claims, quiet title claims, or tort claims, but however
they are framed, they are clearly state law claims over which the court may not
exercise federal question jurisdiction.
The only claim that potentially raises a federal question is the claim against
the judges and employees of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. That claim,
however, is wholly frivolous, and a frivolous claim against a federal judge is not
sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction. See, e.g., Winslowet-Alps v.
Harris, 2020 WL 4719106 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2020); Wiley v. Wilkins, 134 F.
Supp. 3d 308, 309–10 (D.D.C. 2015); see also Perry v. Merit Systems Protection
Board, 137 S. Ct. 1975, 1984 (2017) (noting that claims must be more than
“insubstantial or frivolous” to invoke federal question jurisdiction). Accordingly,
there is no basis for the court to exercise federal question jurisdiction, and this
court therefore does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. An appropriate order follows.
s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Court Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: February 17, 2021
6
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?