Currie v. CitiMortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 36

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 11 , 19 , and 30 Motions to Dismiss. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants' three Motions to Dismiss be GRANTED, and that this action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 8/21/2014. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.) (ds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

LARRY LEE CURRIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-01139
Judge Trauger / Knowles

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court upon three Motions to Dismiss: the first, filed by
Defendants CitiMortgage, Inc., Citi Group, Inc., and Wilson & Associates, PLLC (collectively
referred to as “CitiMortgage Defendants”) (Docket No. 11); the second, filed by Defendants
Governor Bill Haslam and Treasurer David Lillard (collectively referred to as “State Official
Defendants”) (Docket No. 19); and the third, filed by Defendants Susan Harris Green and Harris
Realtors, Inc. (collectively referred to as “Harris Defendants”) (Docket No. 30). Each Motion is
accompanied by a supporting Memorandum of Law. Docket Nos. 12, 20, 31.
As grounds for their Motion, the CitiMortgage Defendants argue that the instant action
should be dismissed against them because: (1) Plaintiff has failed to provide a short and plain
statement showing that he is entitled to relief, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); (2)
Plaintiff’s process is insufficient and Plaintiff has effected insufficient service of process,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5); and (3) Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against them for
which relief may be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Docket Nos. 11, 12.
As grounds for their Motion, the State Official Defendants argue that the instant action

should be dismissed as pertains to them because: (1) Plaintiff has failed to establish this Court’s
jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); and (2) Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
against them for which relief may be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Docket Nos.
19, 20. Specifically, the State Official Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Complaint and
“Adendum [sic] Complaint” are “completely devoid of the required factual and legal support
required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, 12(b)(1) and (6) to maintain a cause of action against the State
Officials,” and because Plaintiff’s Complaint and “Adendum [sic] Complaint” are “based on
frivolous legal theory unrecognized by courts, amendment would be futile and dismissal with
prejudice is warranted.” Docket No. 19. The State Official Defendants also argue that the
Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiff’s claims against them because they are State officials and
this Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear such claims. Id.
As grounds for their Motion, the Harris Defendants argue that the instant action should
be dismissed against them because: (1) Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against them for which
relief may be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); (2) Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no
factual allegations; (3) Plaintiff does not assert any cognizable legal claim against them; and (4)
Plaintiff’s Complaint is brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983, but the Harris Defendants were not state
actors or acting under color of law, which is required for a §1983 action. Docket Nos. 30, 31.
After the first two Motions to Dismiss were filed, Plaintiff filed three documents of his
own: the first, entitled “Motion for Deault [sic] CitiMortgage, Inc. et al Banks Cannot Own
Property” (Docket No. 22); the second, entitled “Motion of Dishonor, Dismissal (Removal) of
Foreign Agent i.e. Attorney Edward D. Russell (BPR 26126) and Demand that the Foreign
Agent Governs Himself Accordingly” (Docket No. 23); and the third, entitled “Motion for

2

Dismissal is Denied and Demand for Federal Jurisdiction and Venue for Fraud of Security
Instrument, and Public Records” (Docket No. 26). While the title of Plaintiff’s third document
implies that it could be a Response to one or both of the first two Motions to Dismiss (which
were filed prior to Plaintiff’s filing these three documents), the contents of Plaintiff’s three
documents are essentially incomprehensible and do not directly respond to the Motions to
Dismiss. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not responded to any of the instant Motions.
Plaintiff filed an eight-page “Complaint and Commercial Lawsuit” (Docket No. 1) and
an eight-page “Adendum Complaint and Commercial Lawsuit” (Docket No. 3) in October 2013.1
Plaintiff avers that those documents are:
Complaint[s] for damages. This International Common Law Lien
Lawsuit Complaint Against CitiMorgage [sic], Inc; Citi Group,
Inc; Susan Harris Green (Harris Realtors, Inc); Wilson &
Associates P.L.L.C.; Its Trustee’s [sic] and Agent(s) for
Violation(s) Towards the Secured Party, Executor of the Trust of
Larry Lee Currie ens legis; Breaking the Uniform Commercial
Code, Undroit, Unicritical, International Commercial Commerce
Filing; Said Agreements (Contracts); Treaties Both Foreign and
Domestic; Public Trust 73-10.
Docket Nos. 1, 3.
Plaintiff avers that this “is an action for damages caused by the deprivation under ‘color
of law’ and ‘color of authority’” of his “constitutionally guaranteed rights,” as well as

1

In December 2013, Plaintiff filed an eight-page document entitled “Amend to the
Complaint Administrative Common Law Commercial Claim & Relief - Title 42 U.S.C. §1983,
Title 28 U.S.C. §2675(a), and Rule 7022.” Docket No. 24. Like the rest of Plaintiff’s filings,
this document is comprised of nonsensical statements, irrelevant quotes from case law and
statutes, unintelligible rambling, and conclusory accusations.
Plaintiff has also filed a Notice of Filing which is a filing of seven documents (Docket
No. 14) and a “Filing Exhibit A-K on Lawsuit” which is a filing of eleven documents (Docket
No. 34). Plaintiff offers no explanation of, for, or regarding the documents.
3

“UNDROIT, UNICRITICAL, UNDRIP, ICC, UCC.” Docket Nos. 1, 3 (emphasis and
capitalization original). He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, claims jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343, seeks declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201
and 2202, and “invokes the pendent jurisdiction of this Court to hear and decide claims arising
under the Law of the Land.” Id. (emphasis original).
Plaintiff’s “Complaint and Commercial Lawsuit” (Docket No. 1) and “Adendum
Complaint and Commercial Lawsuit” (Docket No. 3) are virtually incoherent and are comprised
entirely of nonsensical statements, irrelevant quotes from case law and statutes, unintelligible
rambling, and conclusory accusations. Plaintiff does not set forth actual claims or the elements
required therefore, nor does he set forth actual facts relevant to each requisite element of his
claims. See Docket Nos. 1, 3. Plaintiff’s filings fail to put Defendants on notice as to what
claims are being levied against each of them specifically.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain a “short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1) requires that each
allegation be “simple, concise, and direct.” A claim that “is so verbose that the Court cannot
identify with clarity the claim(s) of the pleader and adjudicate such claim(s) understandingly on
the merits” violates Rule 8. Harrell v. Dirs. of Bur. Of Narcotics & Dangerous Drugs, 70 F.R.D.
444, 446 (E.D. Tenn. 1975). As noted, Plaintiff does not set forth actual claims or the elements
required therefore, nor does he set forth actual facts relevant to each requisite element of his
claims. Moreover, Plaintiff’s pleadings are virtually incoherent and are comprised entirely of
nonsensical statements, irrelevant quotes from case law and statutes, unintelligible rambling, and
conclusory accusations. Plaintiff’s pleadings violate Rule 8.

4

Additionally, even taking the contents of Plaintiff’s pleadings as true, Plaintiff’s failure to
set forth any facts which would support any claim against any of the named Defendants is fatal.
The Sixth Circuit has also long recognized that a district court may dismiss a Complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) when the allegations of
the Complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no
longer open to discussion. Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999), citing Hagans v.
Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974).
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned recommends that Defendants’ three
Motions to Dismiss (Docket Nos. 11, 19, 30) be GRANTED, and that this action be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has fourteen (14)
days after service of this Report and Recommendation in which to file any written objections to
this Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said objections shall have
fourteen (14) days after service of any objections filed to this Report in which to file any
response to said objections. Failure to file specific objections within fourteen (14) days of
service of this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this
Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985),
reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

___________________________________
E. CLIFTON KNOWLES
United States Magistrate Judge

5