Zeng v. Goodstein

Filing 9

ORDER adopting 5 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker. The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Complaint, and ENJOINS Plaintiff from initiating any new action in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina related to Zeng v. Coosaw Partners, LLC, et al, Case No. 2013-CP-18-3687 (C.P. Dorchester Cty. June 6, 2014), from the date of this Order until the date on which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Cir cuit issues its mandate in Zeng v. Coosaw Partners LLC, Civ. No. 2:15-cv-2023-RMG-MGB (D.S.C. Mar. 11, 2016), appeal docketed No. 16-1320 (4th Cir. Mar. 25, 2016). Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 5/5/2016.(ssam, ) Modified to correct date signed on 5/6/2016 (ssam, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,. ~ r.tl!vn~E,q, 0-,1 r
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
bBc. rl"
. '" ., I, ,;, JC
CHARLESTON DIVISION

lOth MAY - S P 4: I 5

Chang Hua Zeng,
Plaintiffs,
~

Civil Action No. 2:16-1097-RMG

)
)
)
)

)

ORDER

)
Diane S. Goodstein, as Circuit Court Judge )
for the State ofSouth Carolina,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, recommending that the Complaint be summarily dismissed for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation as the Order of the Court, and
additionally enjoins Plaintiff from filing any new actions related to Zeng v. Coosaw Partners, LLC,
et ai, Case No. 2013-CP-18-3687 (C.P. Dorchester Cty. June 6, 2014) during the pendency of the

appeal inZengv. Coosaw Partners LLC, etal., Civ. No. 2:16-1097 (D.S.C. Mar. 11,2016), appeal
docketed No. 16-1320 (4th Cir. Mar. 25, 2016).

I.

Background
On March 1st, 2013, Plaintiff sued his landlord in state court for breach of contract, fraud,

and discrimination. (Compl. 3, '\I III "Statement of Claim.") He proceeded pro se; Circuit Court
Judge Diane S. Goodstein presided over the state case, which went to trial on April 8th, 2014;
judgment was entered for the landlord. See Zeng v. Coosaw Partners, LLC, et ai, Case No. 2013CP-18-3687 (C.P. Dorchester Cty. June 6, 2014) ("Zeng f'). Plaintiff alleges that Judge Goodstein
"made a very obvious mistake to my case." (Compl. 3, '\I III.) Plaintiff appealed the state court
decision to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, which affirmed. See Zeng v. Coosaw Partners,
LLC, 2015 WL4755833 (S.C. Ct. App. Aug. 12,2015). On May 15th, 2015-duringthe pendency
-1-

of the state court appeal-Plaintiff filed an action in this Court. See Zeng v. Coosaw Partners

LLC, Civ. No. 2:15-cv-2023-RMG-MGB (D.S.C. Mar. 11, 2016), appeal docketed No. 16-1320
(4th Cir. Mar. 25, 2016) ("Zeng If'). In that federal action, Plaintiff attempted to re-litigate the
issues that had been adjudicated in state court. As the same claims had already been adjudicated
between the same parties in state court, this Court dismissed the federal suit because of res

judicata. Order 6, Zeng II, Dkt. No. 38 ("It is apparent from the face of the second amended
complaint that Plaintiff's allegations were tried in state court" and that "the parties in that case
were identical to the parties in the present case").
Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal in Zeng II. Notice of Appeal, Zeng II (D.S.C. filed
Mar. 24, 20 IS). On April 8th, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Zeng II informal opening brief with the
Fourth Circuit. Appeal No. 16-1320 (4th Cir.). On that same day, Plaintiff filed this second federal
lawsuit. (Dkt. No. 1 ("Zeng IIf').} In the present Complaint, Plaintiff acknowledges that this
Court dismissed his prior federal lawsuit on March 11 th, 2016 "because I was tried in state court
before." (Dkt. No.1 at 5.) Plaintiff complains that, in the first federal action, the Court "ignore
the state's [sic] judge had made a mistake." (Id (as in original).} For relief, Plaintiff seeks
damages from state Circuit Judge Goodstein for her decision in Zeng I: Judge Goodstein "should
be required to compensate for all of the damage caused by her mistake." (Id.) The Magistrate
Judge recommended summary dismissal on April 18th, 2016. On May 2nd, 2016, Plaintiff filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation, but those objections raise no arguments not fully
addressed by the Magistrate Judge.

II.

Legal Standard
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation

has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (I 976}. The Court is charged with making a de novo
-2-

detennination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is
made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
When a proper objection is made to a particular issue, "a district court is required to
consider all arguments directed to that issue, regardless of whether they were raised before the
magistrate." United States v. George, 971 F.2d 1113, 1118 (4th Cir. 1992). However, "[t]he
district court's decision whether to consider additional evidence is committed to its discretion, and
any refusal will be reviewed for abuse." Doe v. Chao, 306 F.3d 170, 183 & n.9 (4th Cir. 2002).
"[A]ttempts to introduce new evidence after the magistrate judge has acted are disfavored," though
the district court may allow it "when a party offers sufficient reasons for so doing." Caldwell v.

Jackson, 831 F. Supp. 2d 911, 914 (M.D.N.C. 201O)(listing cases).

III.

Analysis
For the reasons detailed in the Report and Recommendation, the present Zeng III complaint

fails to allege any facts that even hint at any cognizable federal claim. (R. & R. 3-{).) There is no
basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction in this matter. Cj Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside

Seafood, Inc., 669 F.3d 448, 452-53 (4th Cir. 2012) (holding that the complaint's allegations
lacked specificity and did not involve any federal controversy) (quoting Oneida Indian Nation of

N.Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974». Further, Plaintiff is barred from using a
federal lawsuit as a device by which to appeal a state court decision. A "party losing in state court
is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a
United States district court." Am. Reliable Ins. Co. v. Stillwell, 336 F.3d 311, 316 (4th Cir. 2003)
(quoting Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994». The Court therefore dismisses
the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Stanfield v. Wigger, Civ. No.2: 14-839PMD,2015 WL 58077, at *3 (D.S.C. Jan.S, 2015) (collecting cases). Moreover, even if there were
-3-

subject matter jurisdiction, the only named Defendant, Judge Goodstein, has absolute judicial
immunity from this suit. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991).
Plaintiff is simply disregarding the appellate process. When Plaintiff received an adverse
judgment in state court, he filed Zeng II-complaining of "error" in the underlying action-while
his state court appeal in Zeng I was still pending. Now, having received an adverse judgment in

Zeng II action, Plaintiff again files a new complaint, Zeng III, complaining of "error" in Zeng I
and Zeng II, and he likewise files it while his appeal from in Zeng II is pending. Plaintiff fully
understood that this Court's decision in Zeng II was under appellate review when he filed the
present complaint-he filed his Zeng III complaint on the same day that he filed his Zeng II
appellate brief.
The current Zeng III action is a vexatious, duplicative filing. Federal courts have the
authority to issue prefiling injunctions against vexatious litigants. Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am.,

Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004). Courts, however, "should not in any way limit a litigant's
access to the courts absent exigent circumstances, such as a litigant's continuous abuse of the
judicial process by filing meritless and repetitive actions." Id at 8 I 7-18 (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). The factors a district court should consider in deciding whether to issue a
prefiling injunction are: (1 ) the party's history of litigation, in particular whether he has filed
vexatious, harassing, or duplicative lawsuits; (2) whether the party had a good faith basis for
pursuing the litigation, or simply intended to harass; (3) the extent of the burden on the courts and
other parties resulting from the party's filings; and (4) the adequacy of alternative sanctions. Id. at
818 (citations omitted).
After balancing these factors, the Court finds that a prefiling injunction is warranted.
Plaintiff has repeatedly filed duplicative actions relating to the same dispute with his landlord. The

-4-

Court finds no good faith basis for Plaintiff's refusal to abide the appellate process. The Court
finds that these duplicative filings have placed great burden on the Court. The Magistrate Judge
has now entered two Reports and Recommendations-and this Court has entered two Ordersregarding a dispute that was fully adjuciated in state court. As Plaintiff proceeds pro se, no
adequate alternative sanctions are available. The Court therefore enjoins Plaintiff from filing any
new actions related to Zeng I. The term of the injunction runs from the date of this Order to the
date on which the Fourth Circuit issues its mandate in Zeng II. This injunction is narrowly tailored
to address only filings related to currently pending appeal only for the period of time during which
the appeal is pending.

IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the

Complaint, and ENJOINS Plaintiff from initiating any new action in the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina related to Zeng v. Coosaw Partners, LLC, et ai, Case No. 2013-CP18-3687 (C.P. Dorchester Cty. June 6, 2014), from the date of this Order until the date on which
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issues its mandate in Zeng v. Coosaw
Partners LLC, Civ. No. 2:15-cv-2023-RMG-MGB (D.S.C. Mar. 11,2016), appeal docketed No.
16-1320 (4th Cir. Mar. 25, 2016).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Court Judge

-.

>

May
,2016
Charleston, South Carolina

-5-