Castro v. SN Servicing LLC

Filing 49

ORDER DENYING 48 Motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal. Signed by Judge David A. Ezra. (aej)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
MARY ANN CASTRO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SN SERVICING CORPORATION,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. SA:15–CV–925–DAE

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Before the Court is a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal,
filed by Plaintiff Maryann Castro. (Dkt. # 48.) Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h),
the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. After
reviewing the motion, for the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s
Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal (Dkt. # 48).
BACKGROUND
This lawsuit is the third Plaintiff has filed challenging the foreclosure
of her home. 1 (“3d Am. Compl,” Dkt. # 18.) The instant suit against Defendant
SN Servicing Corporation (“SNSC”) sought to reinstate Plaintiff’s mortgage, and
alleged causes of action for wrongful foreclosure, fraud, and failure to enter into a
loan modification agreement. (Id.) On May 4, 2016, this Court granted SNSC’s
1

See Castro v. BSI Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 5:15–cv–037–FB (Jan. 16, 2015); Castro
v. SN Serv., No. 5:15–cv–715–DAE (Aug. 21, 2015).
1

Motion to Dismiss Case as Frivolous (Dkt. # 20) after finding that Plaintiff’s Third
Amended Complaint failed to state any claim upon which relief could be granted.
(Dkt. # 41.) On June 22, 2016, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for a New
Trial and deemed Plaintiff, who has filed at least fifty-eight motions, notices,
responses, affidavits, and demands regarding the foreclosure of her home in the
cases before the undersigned, a vexatious litigant. (Dkt. # 45.)
LEGAL STANDARD
“[A] federal court may refuse to certify an appeal for in forma
pauperis status if it is not taken in good faith.” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
219–20 (5th Cir. 1983); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). A party fails to demonstrate good
faith where she seeks appellate review only of frivolous issues. King, 707 F.2d at
220; Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The inquiry into an
appellant’s objective good faith is limited to whether the appeal involves “legal
points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” King, 707 F.2d at
220 (quoting Anders v. Cal., 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967)). If a single non-frivolous
issue exists, the Court must grant a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The
existence of a single non-frivolous issue on appeal is sufficient for the Court to
grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. King, 707 F.2d at 220.

2

DISCUSSION
Here, the issues presented by Plaintiff have been reviewed and denied
in three separate district court cases. In the instant case, Plaintiff included
documents with the complaint acknowledging that she owed $66,367.76 in
delinquent mortgage payments and $7,599.26 in late fees as of October 2014. (3d
Am. Compl., Ex. A at 1.) Plaintiff did not repay the owed money, and SNSC
accelerated her loan and foreclosed on her home on September 1, 2015. (Id. at 2.)
On May 4, 2016, the Court granted SNSC’s Motion to Dismiss the
instant case as frivolous, after finding that Plaintiff: (1) failed to state a claim for
wrongful foreclosure, as she had not alleged that the selling price of her home was
inadequate; (2) failed to state a claim for fraud under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 9(b); and (3) failed to state a claim for failure to enter into a loan
modification agreement, because the Deed of Trust does not obligate a lender to
modify the loan. (Dkt. # 41.) Each claim was dismissed with prejudice. The
Court subsequently reviewed the final judgment pursuant to Plaintiff’s motion, and
concluded the case presented only frivolous issues. 2

2

This Court construed Ms. Castro’s Motion for a New Trial (Dkt. # 44) as a Rule
59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment, as no trial occurred in the case. (Dkt.
# 45.)
3

Put simply, Plaintiff defaulted on her mortgage, did not remedy her
default, and has repeatedly and unsuccessfully turned to the Court seeking to
remedy the perceived wrongs against her.
At this point, Plaintiff’s legal arguments bear no possibility of further
success and are frivolous. Absent a non-frivolous claim, this Court cannot grant
Plaintiff status to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal, and her motion is
DENIED (Dkt. # 48). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s
Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal (Dkt. # 48).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: San Antonio, Texas, August 12, 2016.

4