Dewayne v. United States

• Decision Date: 27 May 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 22-cv-304 (TSC)
• Parties: RUBEN DEWAYNE, Bishop, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

RUBEN DEWAYNE, Bishop, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 22-cv-304 (TSC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

May 27, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TANYA S. CHUTKAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Bishop Ruben DeWayne brings this action pro se against “The United States Acting in Concert with J.P. MORGAN ACQUISITION CORP., And MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.” Compl. at 1. Defendants have moved to dismiss. ECF Nos. 8, 16. For the reasons set forth below, the court will GRANT the motions.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, who is domiciled in South Carolina, challenges financing charges and a mortgage foreclosure on property located in Massachusetts. Compl. at 3, 7-9. In 2012, Leitta Brooks, the mortgagor on the property, sued mortgage holder J.P. Morgan Chase Bank in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging improper calculation and disclosure of financing charges in violation of the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). Compl. ¶ 12; Brooks v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 12-cv-11634-FDS (D. Mass. July 17, 2013), ECF No. 37, Mem. Op. at 1. The court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss in 2013. Id. Brooks appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed in July 2014. Brooks v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 13-2041 (1st Cir. July 9, 2014).

1

Several weeks later, on July 22, 2014, Brooks filed another lawsuit against the same defendant raising the same claims, Brooks v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 14-cv-13068-FDS (D. Mass. July 22, 2014). Upon motion, the court dismissed the action on res judicata/claim preclusion grounds, id. at ECF No. 16, and the First Circuit affirmed. Brooks v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, No. 15-1055 (1st Cir. Sept. 8, 2015).

The following month, on October 14, 2015, Brooks transferred her interest in the property via quitclaim deed to Plaintiff in satisfaction of a debt. Compl. ¶ 18; DeWayne v. J.P. Morgan Mortg. Acquisition Corp., 15-cv-14245-IT (D. Mass. Nov. 10, 2016), ECF No. 64, Mem. Op. at 2.

Shortly thereafter, on December 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action in Massachusetts federal court against several defendants, including the same private defendants named in this case: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) and J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corporation. DeWayne v. J.P. Morgan Mortg. Acquisition Corp., 15-cv-14245-IT (D. Mass. Dec. 30, 2015). He challenged the interest calculations on the loan and assignment of the loan by MERS from the original mortgage holder to J.P. Morgan. Id., ECF No. 1, Compl. at 7-11. Plaintiff also alleged fraud, as well as breach of fiduciary duty, and sought a declaration regarding his rights in the property. Id. at 8, 11-12, 17.

The Massachusetts court dismissed the action because non-lawyers may not sue on other individuals' behalf. DeWayne, 15-cv-14245-IT, ECF No. 64, Mem. Op. at 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1654) (“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct cases

2

therein.”)). The court also noted that Plaintiff's factual allegations mirrored those proffered by Brooks in the earlier litigation and were therefore barred by res judicata/claim preclusion principles. Id. at 3- 4. It found that to the extent Plaintiff sought to pursue claims on his own behalf, he had not proffered facts to support his fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claim, nor his claim against MERS. Id. at 3-5.

Almost immediately, Plaintiff filed a second declaratory judgment action in Massachusetts state court, this time against MERS, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, and J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. See DeWayne v. J.P. Morgan Mortg. Acquisition Corp., 17-cv-10139-IT (D. Mass. July 12, 2017), ECF No. 1. Defendants removed the action to federal court, after which the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that Plaintiff's claims were precluded by the decision in his first declaratory judgment lawsuit. Id., ECF No. 24, Mem. Op.

The following year, Plaintiff filed another lawsuit in Massachusetts state court against J.P Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. and MERS, seeking to prevent a foreclosure, requesting a declaratory judgment, as well as damages for unfair and deceptive practices. See DeWayne v. J.P. Morgan Mortg. Acquisition Corp., 18-cv-10931-LTS (D. Mass. Apr. 5, 2019). Defendants removed the action to federal court once again and the court again granted Defendants' motions to dismiss on res judicata/claim preclusion grounds. Id., ECF Nos. 53, 94.

In 2020, Plaintiff sought relief in this court, naming the same defendants as he names in the current lawsuit, alleging TILA, RESPA, and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations, improper transfer of the mortgage, as well as misrepresentation, slander, and unfair practices under Massachusetts state law. DeWayne v. United States, No. 20-cv-515 (D.D.C. Feb. 19, 2020), ECF No. 1, Compl. at 3-4, 10, 16-18, 31-33.

3

Plaintiff also challenged the prior decisions by the Massachusetts federal court. See e.g., id., at 4-8, 23-25, 27-30. The case was assigned to another judge in this district.

That judge granted...