Jaye v. Barr

• Decision Date: 07 June 2021
• Docket Number: CV420-321
• Parties: CHRIS ANN JAYE, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM BARR, et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

CHRIS ANN JAYE, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM BARR, et al. Defendants.

CV420-321

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

June 7, 2021

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, Chris Ann Jaye, appearing pro se, has filed a Complaint alleging a conspiracy of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct of which she is the victim. This Complaint and its accompanying motions and letters are one component of a larger, multiyear campaign of vexatious and abusive litigation brought by Jaye in various state and federal courts. For the following reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED and that filing restrictions be IMPOSED.

I. Background

The history of this case is long and cumbersome. Though the claims before the Court largely relate to the perceived mishandling of a case in the Northern District of Iowa, a review Jaye's complete litigation history is needed for context. Over the last decade, she has filed dozens of cases and appeals before state and federal courts.¹ The majority, if not all, of these case are the progeny of New Jersey state court cases concerning a dispute with her condominium association, the probate of her father's estate, and the foreclosure on a home. See Jaye v. Grewal, et al., CV2:21-1566, doc. 1 at 1 (D.N.J. Apr. 5, 2021) ("This matter arises from a condominium dispute that has since developed into multiple actions, state and federal, involving dozens of defendants. . . . There was later a foreclosure on [Jaye's] unit"); see also, e.g., Jaye v. Grewal, et al., CV6:21-048 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2021) (alleging conspiracy, racketeering, and fraud relating to a New Jersey state court probate case); Jaye v. Hoffman,et al., CV1:16-7771 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2016) (suit brought against multiple state and federal judges objecting to the handling of her prior cases); Jaye v. Oak Knoll Vill. Condo. Owners Ass'n., Inc., et al., CV1:15-8324 (D.N.J. Nov. 30, 2015) (suit arising from multiple New Jersey state court actions and accusing defense counsel in those cases of criminal violations, including racketeering); Jaye v. Hoffman, et al., CV1:14-7471 (D.N.J. Dec. 2, 2014) (challenge to New Jersey statutes arising from a New Jersey state court judgment and award of attorney's fees against Jaye for non-payment of condominium fees). Following adverse decisions in these cases, Jaye began a protracted series of appeals and new litigation, challenging the legality of the courts' ruling and suing anyone even remotely involved in the cases.

A. District of New Jersey

Responding to what appears to be her dissatisfaction with the outcome of state court cases, Jaye began filing actions in the federal courts, beginning with four cases in the District of New Jersey. The first of which was filed in December 2014 against the New Jersey Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, four state judges, and three state court employees. Jaye v. Hoffman, et al., CV1:14-7471 (D.N.J. Dec. 2,2014). Jaye alleged that various forms of judicial misconduct and an unwillingness of prosecutors to investigate perceived illegal acts deprived her of lawful rights and access to justice. Id., doc. 34 (Jan. 13, 2016) (second amended compliant). Her dissatisfaction with the case led her to submit letters to the presiding judge and chief judge of the District asking for the case to be supervised.² Id., doc. 38 (Feb. 4, 2016); Id., doc. 39 (Feb. 4, 2016). The case was dismissed with prejudice as the court found that the pleadings were replete with unsupported, conclusory allegations and were barred by the Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine. Id., doc. 64 (May 25, 2016).³

In November 2015, Jaye filed a second suit in the District of New Jersey against 39 named defendants alleging fraud and racketeering related to her condominium. Jaye v. Oak Knoll Vill. Condo. Owners Ass'n., Inc., CV1:15-8324, doc. 1 (D.N.J. Nov. 30, 2016) (complaint); id., doc. 111 (Mar. 18, 2016) (amended complaint). As in her prior case, Jaye sent multiple letters to the court disparaging the administration of the case and opposing counsel. See e.g., id., doc. 94 (Feb. 29, 2016) (letter to chief judge complaining of perceived denials of rights); id., doc. 165 (May 5, 2016) (referring to opposing party and attorney as "deviant, a fool and a moron" and accusing the New Jersey judiciary of showing favoritism toward counsel). The court dismissed the case with prejudice on defendants' motion.⁴ Id., doc. 306 (Nov. 30, 2016) (order granting motion to dismiss). The district court denied plaintiff an opportunity to file a second amended complaint, in part, due to her pattern of filing cases based on the same core set of facts and adding attorneys, law firms, andjudges whom she believes to be responsible for prior adverse decisions. Jaye v. Oak Knoll Vill. Condo. Owners Ass'n, Inc., CV1:15-8324, doc. 305 (D.N.J. Nov. 30, 2016) (memorandum opinion).

In October 2016, Jaye filed her third case in the District of New Jersey against 37 named defendants, many of whom were named in her 2014 case. Jaye v. Hoffman, et al., CV1:16-7771, doc. 1 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2016) (complaint); id. doc. 86 (Sep. 21, 2017) (amended complaint). The complaint made general allegations that the defendants violated federal and New Jersey civil rights statutes. Id., doc. 1 (Oct. 24, 2016) (complaint). The claims against all but one defendant were dismissed under the doctrines of res judicata, immunity, and privilege. Id., doc. 81 (Aug. 9, 2017) (order). Jaye attempted to amend her complaint to add 22 new defendants and to raise allegations of racketeering and violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Id., doc. 86 (Sep. 21, 2017). The proposed amendment was stricken as leave was not granted before filing. Id., doc. 100 (Nov. 9, 2017) (order striking first amended complaint). In dismissing the remaining defendant based on judicial immunity, the court also noted that the proposed amendment would have been futile, as it failed to address any of the defects previously identified by the court,instead providing only "generalized, sweeping allegations." Id., doc. 110 (Mar. 28, 2018) (opinion).

During the case, Jaye filed two motions for injunctive relief requesting that the federal courts discharge liens against her property and halt a state foreclosure action. Id., doc. 3 (Nov. 8, 2016); id., doc. 39 (Apr. 17, 2017). Both motions were denied for plaintiff's failure to demonstrate irreparable harm that could not be corrected through a monetary award. Id., doc. 7 (Nov. 21, 2016); id., doc. 49 (May 2, 2017). Jaye appealed to the Third Circuit, which affirmed the denial. Jaye v. Hoffman, et al., No. 17-2231 (3d. Cir. Mar. 19, 2018); Jaye v. Hoffman, et al., No. 17-2321 (3d. Cir. Jul. 12, 2017) (dismissed for non-payment).

Following the closing of the case, Jaye filed several motions seeking to reopen the case, alter the court's decision, remove the presiding district judge, and appoint a three-judge panel to consider any pending motions. Jaye v. Hoffman, et al., CV1:16-7771, doc. 113 (D.N.J. Apr. 9, 2018) (motion for reconsideration); id., doc. 114 (Apr. 9, 2018) (motion for recusal); id., doc. 115 (Apr. 9, 2018) (letter requesting a three-person panel); id., doc. 118 (Apr. 26, 2018) (motion to make findings of fact); id., doc. 119 (Apr. 26, 2018) (motion to reopen case and demand to correctrecord). The court directed defendants that they were not obligated to file responses to the motions, id., doc. 116 (Apr. 9, 2018) (order), which were denied. Id., doc. 120 (May 18, 2018) (order denying post-closing motions). Jaye also sent another insulting letter to the presiding judge, accusing him of unlawful acts. Id., doc. 117 (Apr. 26, 2018) (letter to judge). She later filed additional motions requesting that the presiding judge recuse himself, all of his orders be vacated, and she be granted her requested relief in the case. Id., doc. 22 (Jun. 27, 2018) (motion to vacate orders); id., doc. 123 (Oct. 24, 2018) (motion for relief from judgment). These motions were again denied. Id., doc. 125 (Dec. 20, 2018) (opinion denying motions). Jaye then filed a motion for injunctive relief and a motion to amend and consolidate her complaint with a recently opened case.⁵ Id., doc. 127 (May 20, 2019) (motion for injunctive relief); id., doc. 128 (Jun. 4, 2019) (motion to amend and consolidate). These motions were denied. Id., doc. 130 (Dec. 16, 2019).

In July 2017, Jaye filed her fourth case in the District of New Jersey, naming 45 defendants, many of which were state and federaljudges in her prior and then-pending cases. Jaye v. Shipp, et al., CV 1:17-5257, doc. 1 (D.N.J. Jul. 18, 2017). She alleged that the judges engaged in a conspiracy to deny Constitutional and statutory rights. Id. She also alleged that other defendants made fraudulent public recordings, committed perjury, and made false court filings. Id. Shortly after filing, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause as to why those defendants entitled to judicial immunity should not be dismissed. Id., doc. 2 (Jul. 21, 2017). Jaye provided a response to the order, id., doc 6 (Jul. 31, 2017); however, the court concluded that she failed to demonstrate how the alleged violations of her rights were more than "fundamental disagreement with previous outcomes in her cases, which are clearly associated with defendants' actions in their official capacities" and dismissed those defendants entitled to immunity. Id., doc. 8 (Aug. 18, 2017). The remaining claims were later dismissed under the doctrines of immunity, res judicata, abstention, and a finding that Jaye failed to adequately state a claim on which relief could be granted. Id., doc. 118 (Mar. 29, 2018). In dismissing the case, the court found Jaye to be an abusive and vexatious litigant and imposed restrictions on her ability to file future cases. Id. As in her 2016 case, Jaye filed several post-closingmotions to vacate the judgment and orders of the court. Id., doc. 134 (Jun. 27, 2018) (...