Hornbuckle v. Martin
Filing
11
Memorandum Opinion and Order Came on for consideration the 8 Motion to Dismiss filed by United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Dismissal granted on third ground - plaintiff's lack of standing and thus finds it unnecessary to consider the remaining grounds. All claims brought by plaintiff are dismissed with prejudice. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 3/11/2015) (ult)
U.,''· DL'iTHJCT
iRT
NORfHERi\ DISTRICT OF TEXAS
F HVD''
k1,_Jc~........,f_h_
~
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT OURT ,
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS '
FORT WORTH DIVISION
·- L
! MAR I I 2015 I
'\
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COlJRT
LUREA HORNBUCKLE,
By---:-:----D~u~
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
vs.
§
§
MATT MARTIN, DIRECTOR,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
NO. 4:15-CV-111-A
§
§
§
§
Defendant.
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
Came on for consideration the motion to dismiss filed in the
above action by defendant, Matt Martin, Director, United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development., On March 2, 2015,
plaintiff, Lurea Hornbuckle, filed a document that appears to be
titled "Plaintiff Original Petition for the Federal Court and
Objection to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Order, and Objection
Removal from Small Claims Court Before Small Claims Court Hearing
for Evidence and Money Loss, Objection to Defendants Dismissal
Order for Failure to State a Claim, and Objection for Dismissal
Order for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction" (errors in
original).
Plaintiff's response to the motion to the dismiss was
due on March 10, 2015, and she has filed nothing other than the
foregoing document.
The court will thus construe the March 2
filing as plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss.
Having
now considered the parties' filings, the notice of removal and
papers submitted in the accompanying appendix, 1 and applicable
legal authorities, the court concludes that the motion should be
granted.
I.
Background and Plaintiff's State Court Pleadings
Plaintiff initiated this action by the filing of her
original petition in the Justice of the Peace Court, Precinct
Eight, in Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas.
The opening two
paragraphs of the petition state:
HUD CONCEALMENT OF EVIDENCE OF ANY
LEGAL INTEREST IN PLAINTIFF PROPERTY,
PLAINTIFF "COMPLAINING OF A FINANCIAL LOSS OF
10,000.00, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT "HUD MATT MARTIN KNOWINGLY PURCHASED STOLEN
PROPERTY FROM BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION WHO
COMMITTED A FINANCIAL CRIME YEAR 2014 AGAINST PLAINTIFF
OWNER OF PROPERTY 4725 ARAMIS DRIVE ARLINGTON TEXAS
76016. YEAR 2010 BOA UNLAWFUL CONVERSION OF THE
OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY, POSSESSION WAS FRAUDULENT TAKEN
FROM DEED OF TRUST, USING ILLEGAL CONSTABLE DEED FRAUD.
1
The appendix submitted in support of the motion to dismiss includes opinions from a number of
courts that have considered and dismissed plaintiffs claims pertaining to the same property. Plaintiff has
been declared a vexatious litigant by both state and federal courts due to the number of actions plaintiff
has filed pertaining to the property, and at least one federal district has imposed monetary sanctions
against plaintiff.
2
App'x to Def. 's Notice of Removal at 10 (errors, capitalization,
and underlining in original) .
The petition then alleged2 that
plaintiff and her now-deceased husband purchased their property
in 2002 from Principal Residential Mortgage Company by signing a
note and deed of trust.
Plaintiff seems to allege that there is
no evidence that the note and deed of trust were assigned to Bank
of America.
It appears plaintiff's property was sold at a
foreclosure sale in the fall of 2010, and that Bank of America
conveyed the property to defendant on May 8, 2014.
Plaintiff
claims she is a victim of" [rn]ortgage [f]raud," id., and that
defendant concealed the purchase of her property from Bank of
America.
Plaintiff appears to be seeking reimbursement for fees
associated with losing her horne, including paying for a storage
facility and rental property, in the amount of $10,000; it is
unclear from the petition if plaintiff is seeking additional
relief.
II.
Defendant's Motion and Plaintiff's Response
Defendant moves for dismissal on the grounds that the court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action because this
action falls within an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act
2
The petition appears to be comprised of a few pages of rambling statements, from which the
court can glean but a few factual statements.
3
waiver of sovereign immunity for suits against United States.
Defendant further argues for dismissal because the federal
district court has exclusive jurisdiction over suits against
United States seeking monetary damages.
Inasmuch as plaintiff
filed this action in state court, the doctrine of derivative
jurisdiction deprives this court of jurisdiction over this
action.
Finally, defendant maintains that plaintiff lacks
standing to challenge Bank of America's conveyance of the
property to defendant because she no longer owns the property at
issue, and she has been barred from raising further legal
challenges to Bank of America's ownership of the property.
The contours of plaintiff's response are difficult to
discern.
She apparently contends that defendant has no evidence
that it is the owner of her property, as recorded in Tarrant
County property records on May 17, 2014. The petition also seems
to allege that defendant breached a contract pertaining to
plaintiff's property, although it is unclear'which contract was
purportedly breached or how.
III.
Analysis
The grounds of the motion to dismiss all appear to be welltaken.
However, the court finds that dismissal is warranted on
4
the third ground--plaintiff's lack of standing--and thus finds it
unnecessary to consider the remaining grounds.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and have
only the power granted by Article III of the Constitution and
applicable statutes.
U.S. 534, 541 (1986).
Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475
Article III of the United States
Constitution limits the judicial power of federal courts to
"Cases" or "Controversies."
U.S. Const. art. III,
§
2, cl. 1.
"One element of the case-or-controversy requirement is that [a
plaintiff] . . . , must establish that [she] ha[s] standing to
sue."
Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818 (1997)
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992).
(quoting Lujan v.
The doctrine of
standing seeks to ensure that a plaintiff has a sufficient stake'
in the controversy to merit his or her being the proper party to
litigate it.
Id.
Standing in any federal court is a federal
question not dependent on a party's prior standing in state
court.
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 804
(1985).
Constitutional standing under Article III has three
elements: (1) the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in
fact";
(2) traceable to the defendant's alleged conduct; and (3)
that likely would be redressed by a favorable decision.
Lujan,
504 U.S. at 560-561; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Labuzan,
5
579 F.3d 533, 539 (5th Cir. 2009).
It is clear from the record before the court that plaintiff
cannot establish any of the required elements.
Specifically,
plaintiff has failed to establish at least the first two elements
needed to show standing: plaintiff cannot show that she has
suffered any injury that is traceable to anything done by
defendant.
Plaintiff's home was sold at foreclosure around
October 2010, and Bank of America became the owner of the
property on November 8, 2010.
Bank of America subsequently
conveyed the property to defendant.
Although plaintiff at one time had an ownership interest in
the property, it is abundantly clear from the record that such
interest longer exists.
Further, plaintiff has been barred from
raising any legal challenges to the ownership of the property.
Although it seems clear from the rambling statements in the
petition that plaintiff believes she has been wronged, no harm is
alleged in the petition that is traceable to defendant's
acceptance of the property from Bank of America.
Any purported
harm suffered by plaintiff arose from the foreclosure of her
property prior to any involvement of defendant.
Whatever harm
plaintiff believes she has suffered as a result of the
foreclosure was thus not caused by defendant.
Even if the court,
were to set aside the conveyance from Bank of America to
6
defendant, plaintiff would still not be the owner, and such an
action would still not entitle plaintiff to any relief.
To summarize, nothing in the state court pleading or its
attachments can be construed as showing that·plaintiff has
suffered any injury in fact that is traceable to defendant as
required to establish standing.
IV.
Order
Therefore,
The court ORDERS that all claims and causes of action
brought by plaintiff, Lurea Hornbuckle, against defendant, Matt
Martin, Director, United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development, be, and are hereby, dismissed with prejudice.
SIGNED March 11, 2015.
7
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?