Opinion
Case No. 3:11cv00083.
March 18, 2011
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Taunna Fletcher, a resident of Tipp City, Ohio, brings this case pro se naming as defendants Federal National Mortgage Association and Chase Home Financial LLC. She alleges:
Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) used false affidavit that was not notarized nor signed under oath to secure a judgment against myself and my husband to evict us from our home. FNMA also secured a summary judgment . . . foreclosure case against us without properly serving us with foreclosure proceedings. FNMA also did not provide an affidavit in support of its . . . complaint for foreclosure which also was summary judgment. FNMA thru Chase Home Finance neve[r] recorded a document in Miami County showcasing that they (FNMA) had standing to bring the foreclosure case.
Chase Home Financing never served us with the complaint nor provided a sworn statement attesting to . . . that they owned the note nor did they provide a chance to contest the summary judgment. I Taunna Fletcher became disabled during this time, had I been properly notified credit life disability could have been made available to my family.
(Doc. #2 at 16). An Opinion by the Ohio Court of Appeals in the underlying state court foreclosure case referenced in the Complaint states, "The Federal National Mortgage Association (`Fannie Mae') purchased [the Fletchers'] property . . . at a Sheriffs auction on June 6, 2007, and the sale was confirmed on July 12, 2007." Federal National Mortgage Association v. James Fletcher, et al., 2010 WL 3192913 at *1 (Ohio Ct. App., Aug. 13, 2010).
As for relief, Plaintiff states, "I want the Court to Stop all impending action against my home. I want the Court to vacate all actions the Defendant prevailed using false affidavits." (Doc. #2 at 17).
The Complaint names Plaintiff Taunna Fletcher as the sole Plaintiff. Yet it appears from additional documents submitted by her husband, Jim Fletcher, that he also intends to be a party/plaintiff in the case. This Decision and Order will therefore refer to the Fletchers as "Plaintiffs."
The Court previously granted Plaintiffs' Application to Proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The case is presently before the Court for a sua sponte review to determine whether Plaintiffs' Complaint, plus his additional allegations concerning the amount he seeks to recover, should be dismissed because it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). If the Complaint raises a claim with an arguable or rational basis in fact or law, it is neither frivolous nor malicious and it may not be dismissed sua sponte. Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 923-24 (6th Cir. 2008); see Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990). A Complaint has no arguable factual basis when its allegations are "fantastic or delusional." Brand, 526 F.3d at 923 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989)); see Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199. A Complaint has no arguable legal basis when it presents "indisputably meritless" legal theories — for example, when the defendant is immune from suit or when the plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28; see also Brand, 526 F.3d at 923. The main issue thus presented by a sua sponte review at this early stage of the case is "whether [the] complaint makes an arguable legal claim and is based on rational facts." Brand, 526 F.3d at 923-24 (citing Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1198).
Plaintiffs' Complaint does not allege fantastic or delusional facts. Cf. Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199 ("Examples of claims lacking rational facts are prisoner petitions asserting that Robin Hood and his Merry Men deprived prisoners of their access to mail or that a genie granted a warden's wish to deny prisoners any access to legal texts.").
For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendations, which addresses Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not deprive this Court of subject matter jurisdiction in the instant case. (Doc. #7). Plaintiffs' allegations and documents likewise present a federal issue under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act that is sufficient to support the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. And diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 appears to exist as well, U.S.C. § 1331. And diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 appears to exist as well, for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendations. (Doc. #7).
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).
Lastly, although Plaintiffs may face significant potential defenses — such as res judicata and a statute of limitation, accepting their allegations as true and construing the Complaint and documents of record liberally in their favor, the record at present does not present wholly or "indisputably meritless" legal theories.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Complaint is not subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) at this early stage of the case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. The United States Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of the Complaint, summons, and this Order upon the named defendants as directed by Plaintiffs. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States.
2. Plaintiffs must serve the named defendants — or their attorney in the event an attorney's appearance is entered in the record — with a copy of every document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiffs shall include with the original paper to be filed with the Clerk of Court a certificate stating the date and verifying that Plaintiffs mailed a true and correct copy of any document to defendants or their attorney(s). Any paper received by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge that has not been filed with the Clerk of Court or that fails to include a certificate of service will be disregarded by the Court.
3. Plaintiffs must inform the Clerk of Court promptly of any changes of address which they have during the pendency of this lawsuit. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of their case for failure to prosecute.