Labranche v. La. Dep't of Justice

• Decision Date: 31 March 2021
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-146-SDD-EWD
• Parties: JAMIE LABRANCHE v. THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana

JAMIE LABRANCHE v. THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-146-SDD-EWD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

March 31, 2021

NOTICE AND ORDER

Before the Court is the Petition for Writ of Mandamus Pursuant to Public Records Laws ("Complaint")¹ and Motion to File Notice of Evidence ("Motion"),² filed pro se by Jamie Labranche ("Plaintiff").³ In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus directing Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry ("Landry") of the Louisiana Department of Justice ("DOJ") to produce certain records requested by Plaintiff pursuant to Louisiana's Public Records Act ("PRA"), La. R.S. 44:33, et seq.;⁴ Article XII, Section 3 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974;⁵ unspecified "Federal Accountability (GAO) Law;" and "other applicable law cited herein."⁶ Because it is not clear that this Court has federal subj ect matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted for the reasons explained more fully below, Plaintiff shall be ordered to filed an amended complaint in accordance with this Order. Alternatively, Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the case.

I. Background

Plaintiff seeks production of "public records in state possession, accounting for every dollar of 67 million plus dollars received from federal government" and "copys [sic] of all transactions related to this 67 million and any money you may be keeping in escrow. Down to the nearest dollar."⁷ Despite this cryptic description of the records requested, news articles attached to Plaintiff's Complaint shed further light on the documents that Plaintiff is requesting. According to the news articles, in February 9, 2012, the federal government and forty-nine state attorneys general reached a $25 billion agreement with the nation's five largest mortgage servicers "to address mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure abuses" (the "settlement"). Reportedly, "The agreement provides substantial financial relief to homeowners and establishes significant new homeowner protections for the future" and "requires [mortgage services] to commit more than $20 billion towards financial relief for consumers."⁸ The news article reports that the terms of the settlement required $20 billion in financial relief for borrowers, and also required the servicers to pay $5 billion in cash to the federal and state governments, $1.5 billion of which was to be used to establish a borrower payment fund to provide cash payments to borrowers whose homes were sold or taken in foreclosure between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011.⁹ Other articles attached to Plaintiff's Motion reference that California received $410 million in the settlement, and Texas received $124 million in the settlement; however, legal and/or legislative action was ultimately attempted and/or taken against both states for misappropriation of the funds, as it was alleged that the states failed to disburse the money to homeowners, but rather deposited the money into their respective state general funds.¹⁰ Construing Plaintiff's claims, and the substance of his PRArequests, against this backdrop, it appears that Plaintiff seeks a writ compelling Landry to produce the documents that reflect an accounting of Louisiana's portion of the settlement, which Plaintiff contends amounted to more than $67 million dollars, including an accounting of where the funds were directed and where they are currently are held. While Plaintiff asserts that the settlement proceeds were "designed to help people like me," Plaintiff has not specifically raised a claim to the funds in his Complaint.¹¹

The record reflects that Plaintiff submitted two PRA requests, one on January 8, 2019 and another on February 24, 2021. Both times, Plaintiff was advised in response that there were no documents responsive to his requests.¹² In his Complaint, Plaintiff additionally claims that he was denied these records in 2014 by former Louisiana Attorney General James D. Caldwell.¹³ Plaintiff contends that he needs the requested records to "close [his] civil case," which is a foreclosure case that Plaintiff has been litigating in the Fortieth Judicial District Court for the last fourteen years. Plaintiff also makes vague and unclear allegations that suggest that former Attorney General representatives allegedly colluded and/or used evidence and information obtained from that office against Plaintiff in order to defeat his claims to the funds and/or against him in his foreclosure case.¹⁴ In support of his PRA request, Plaintiff argues that "the publics (sic) right of access to public records is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution," citing Louisiana state court jurisprudence,¹⁵ and the failure of Landry to produce the records "will violate [Plaintiff's] civil rights life, liberty and * property lost."¹⁶

Significant for the purpose of the instant Order, Plaintiff argues the following as grounds for issuance of the writ by this Court: "clearly a writ of mandamus may be directed to a public officer to compel the performance of a ministerial duty required by law," specifically relying on La. C.C.P. art. 3863, which provides that "A writ of mandamus may be directed to a public officer to compel the performance of a ministerial duty required by law, or to a former officer or his heirs to compel the delivery of the papers and effects of the office to his successor."¹⁷ Furthermore, Plaintiff contends, several times, that this Court allegedly has original jurisdiction over this matter because the underlying funds are comprised of "federal government money with GAO accountability."¹⁸ Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages, sanctions, and costs for Landry's violation of the PRA, and "for F.B.I. to open new case on foul play surrounding the case."¹⁹

II. Law and Analysis

Unlike state district courts, which are courts of general jurisdiction and may therefore hear all types of claims, federal courts may only entertain those cases over which there is subject matter jurisdiction. Federal subject matter jurisdiction may generally be established in two ways. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over "civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treatises of the United States,"²⁰ and over civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs and the parties are completely diverse (i.e., all plaintiffs are citizens of a different state than all defendants).²¹ The burden of establishing federal subjectmatter jurisdiction is on the party asserting it (here, Plaintiff).²² A court may raise on its own at any time the issue of whether subject matter jurisdiction exists.²³

With regard to diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff has not alleged his own citizenship,²⁴ or that of the DOJ, or the requisite amount in controversy of $75,000. However, even if Plaintiff had adequately alleged his own citizenship to be that of Louisiana, he cannot allege complete diversity against the DOJ, the named defendant, because a state agency is not a citizen for federal diversity of citizenship purposes.²⁵ Therefore, it does not appear that Plaintiff has, or can, adequately allege jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.

With regard to federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Plaintiff must state a cause of action arising under federal law, which Plaintiff's Complaint currently fails to do. Plaintiff's underlying PRA request is asserted pursuant to Louisiana statutory and constitutional law, i.e., La. R.S. 44:33 and Article XII, Section 3 of the Louisiana Constitution, and his grounds for issuance of the writ are likewise premised upon Louisiana law, La. C.C.P. art. 3863. At most, Plaintiff contends that the settlement money is "federal government money," but that allegation byitself does not allege a federal cause of action, and Plaintiff has not provided any legal authority or argument for why it otherwise would.²⁶

Plaintiff also relies on unspecified "Federal accountability (GAO) laws" and unspecified civil rights laws in support of jurisdiction, but Plaintiff fails to point to any particularized federal accountability law or civil rights law that supports jurisdiction in this case. Even construing Plaintiff's claims liberally in light of his pro se status, the Court is independently unaware of any federal accountability law applicable to this case that provides subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted.

Regarding other potentially applicable legal grounds, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1361, which provides for original jurisdiction "of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff." This statute permits issuance of a writ against an officer or employee of the United States, which clearly does not apply to state actor Landry or the DOJ.²⁷ The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, permits the district courts to issue writs in aid of their jurisdiction and in certain circumstances upon the required showing, but only when the request for the writ is supported by an independent basis for jurisdiction, which does not appear to exist for the reasons set forth above.²⁸

The articles attached to Plaintiff's Motion refer to legal actions decided by the state courts in California and Texas. The legal basis for the California litigation is unclear, but the July 2019 article reports that the litigation has reached finality, as the California Supreme Court is reported to have declined review of the ruling of the state appellate court holding that the settlement money must be repaid.²⁹ The November 2015 article regarding the Texas litigation does not indicate the forum for the litigation, or the specific legal basis for the lawsuit, aside from referring to a "federal whistleblower complaint" that "accuses the state of Texas of the "illegal diversion" of the state's share of the settlement funds."...