Lumpkins v. U.S. Gov't

• Decision Date: 22 February 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Case No. 14–00333 RJL
• Citation: Lumpkins v. U.S. Gov't, 82 F.Supp.3d 145 (D. D.C. 2015)
• Parties: Barbara B. Lumpkins, Plaintiff, v. United States Government, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

82 F.Supp.3d 145

Barbara B. Lumpkins, Plaintiff

v.United States Government, et al., Defendants.

Civil Case No. 14–00333 RJL

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed February 22, 2015

Filed February 23, 2015

Barbara B. Lumpkins, Lawrenceville, GA, pro se.

Rafique Omar Anderson, William Mark Nebeker, U.S. Attorney's Office, Craig Rust, J. David Folds, Baker Donelson Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Washington, DC, David Glen Sanders, Louisiana Department of Justice, Baton Rouge, LA, Gregory Nelson Britto, Shapiro, Brown & Alt, LLP, Manassas, VA, Lindsay G. Faulkner, Shapiro & Daigrepont, LLC, Metairie, LA, Zara Zeringue, Magee, Zeringue & Richardson, Covington, LA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

[Dkt. # # 6, 7, 12, 15, 21, 34, 37]

RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge

PlaintiffBarbara Lumpkins, proceeding pro se, filed the instant suit against defendantsJay C. Zainey; Susan E. Morgan; Lloyd J. Medley; Melvin Zeno; Terri F. Love; James F. McKay III; and Dennis R. Bagneris, Sr.(the “Judicial Defendants”); the United States Government; Bank of America, N.A.; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC; Louisiana Department of Justice; James B. Caldwell; Shapiro & Daigrepont, LLC; Penny M. Daigrepont; Eva M. Simkovitz; Katharine M. Melesurgo; Lindsay M. Graham; Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell, & Berkowitz; Kent A. Lambert; and Katie L. Dysart(the “non–Judicial Defendants”)(all collectively, “defendants”).The claims arise out of actions taken during the foreclosure and sale of property located at 7838 Tulsa Street, New Orleans (“Mortgaged Property”); plaintiff alleges violations of various provisions of federal law, the United States Constitution, and Louisiana law.SeeComplaint, at p.5[Dkt. # 1].Currently pending before the Court are five motions to dismiss, seeMot. to Dismiss by Bagneris, Love, McKay [Dkt. # 6]; Mot. to Dismiss by Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, Bank of America, N.A., Dysart, Lambert, and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC[Dkt. # 7]; Mot. to Dismiss by Daigrepont, Graham, Melesurgo, Shapiro & Daigrepont, LLC, and Simkovitz [Dkt. # 12]; Mot. to Dismiss by Medley and Zeno [Dkt. # 15]; Mot. to Dismiss by Caldwell and Louisiana Dep't of Justice[Dkt. # 21], a motion to set aside an entry of default, seeMot. to Set Aside Default[Dkt. # 34], and a motion for summary judgment, seeMot. for Summary Judgment by Morgan and Zainey [Dkt. # 37].¹Because I agree with the Judicial Defendants that they are immune from suit, and because I agree with the remaining defendants that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case, the motions are GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's claims arise out of a successful 2011 foreclosure proceeding against plaintiff Lumpkins and her husband (who is not a party to this case) before the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.Compl. at p.3.A judicial foreclosure sale of the property was held on December 8, 2011, by public auction, and defendant Bank of America was the successful bidder at the auction, and thereafter took title by a sheriff's deed.See Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss[Dkt. # 7–1] and accompanying exhibits [Dkt. # # 7–2—7–14].

Following the completion of the 2011 foreclosure proceeding, plaintiff instituted a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on January 3, 2012, against Bank of America; Bank of America's loan servicing agent, Ocwen; Bank of America's foreclosure counsel, and other defendants including the Orleans Parish Civil Sheriff's Office, many of whom are also defendants in the present case.SeeComplaint, Lumpkins v. Bank of America, No. 12–0009(E.D. La. filed on Jan. 3, 2012), ECF No. 1.In this prior federal lawsuit, plaintiff attempted to re-litigate many of the same issues that were litigated in the state foreclosure proceeding; plaintiff essentially alleged a wrongful seizure and sale of the mortgaged property.Id.The case was initially assigned to Judge Zainey and later reassigned to Judge Morgan, both of whom are defendants in this case.See Order Reassigning Case, filed April 5, 2012, ECF No. 35.The case was ultimately dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on December 10, 2012 under the Rooker –Feldman abstention doctrine.SeeOrder and Reasons, Lumpkins v. Bank of America, Civ.2012No. 0009(E.D. La. filed on Dec. 10, 2012), ECF Nos. 66 and 67.

Plaintiff filed the present suit on February 24, 2014, requesting as relief, inter alia, an injunction against defendants on the basis that the foreclosure of the Mortgaged Property was improper.SeeCompl.¶¶ 51–52.Plaintiff's complaint, while largely incomprehensible, appears to attempt to allege violations of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b); violations of the First, Fifth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; a conspiracy to violate civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 & 1986; violations of the Fair Credit Reporting ActandFair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 & 1692; and violations of various provisions of state law including the Louisiana Unfair Trade and Deceptive Practices Act, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 51:1401, breach of contract, defamation, unjust enrichment, negligence, intentional distress, and tortious interference.SeeCompl.¶¶ 51–134.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Although pro se complaints are liberally construed, seeHaines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652(1972);United States v. Byfield,391 F.3d 277, 281(D.C.Cir.2004), courts must still have jurisdiction in order to adjudicate a claim, and “the party claiming subject matter jurisdiction ... has the burden to demonstrate that it exists,”Khadr v. United States,529 F.3d 1112, 1115(D.C.Cir.2008).On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), “the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the factual predicates of jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.”Erby v. United States,424 F.Supp.2d 180, 182(D.D.C.2006)(citing, inter alia, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351(1992) ).“[T]he plaintiff's factual allegations in the complaint ... will bear closer scrutiny in resolving a 12(b)(1) motion than in resolving a 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim.”United States ex rel. Digital Healthcare, Inc. v. Affiliated Computer Servs., Inc.,778 F.Supp.2d 37, 43(D.D.C.2011)(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).Further, in deciding a 12(b)(1) motion, a court need not limit itself to the complaint; rather, it “may consider such materials outside the pleadings as it deems appropriate to resolve the question whether it has jurisdiction in the case.”Bank of America, N.A. v. FDIC,908 F.Supp.2d 60, 76(D.D.C.2012)(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

ANALYSIS

Judges are absolutely immune from lawsuits arising from acts taken in their judicial capacity.SeeMireles v. Waco,502 U.S. 9, 11–12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9(1991);Thanh Vong Hoai v. Superior Court for District of Columbia,344 Fed.Appx. 620(D.C.Cir.2009)(per curiam);Sindram v. Suda,986 F.2d 1459, 1460(D.C.Cir.1993);see alsoStump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 362, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331(1978)(absolute immunity applies “even if [the judge's] approval of [a] petition was in error”).Absolute immunity does not apply to actions “taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.”Mireles,502 U.S. at 13, 112 S.Ct. 286.

The Judicial Defendants in the instant complaint are Jay C. Zainey; Susan E. Morgan; Lloyd J. Medley; Melvin Zeno; Terri F. Love; James F. McKay III; and Dennis R. Bagneris, Sr.Plaintiff alleges that the Judicial Defendants denied her access to a trial by jury by refusing, or failing, to issue rulings in her favor, and asserts, without elaboration, that these acts violated multiple federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution. Compl. at pp.7–11(“Defendant, Jay C. Zainey and Susan E. Morgan prevented plaintiff from prosecuting her claims and issues in United States District Court ...”)id.at ¶ 30(“proof of payment of the mortgage disregarded by Judge Medley”).Nowhere does plaintiff allege, even in a conclusory fashion, that any of the Judicial Defendants acted “in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.”SeeMireles,502 U.S. at 13, 112 S.Ct. 286.In fact, the alleged actions of the Judicial Defendants in this case fall squarely within the jurisdiction of those courts and the official duties of the sitting judges.SeeStump,435 U.S. at 362, 98 S.Ct. 1099(“T]he factors determining whether an act by a judge is a ‘judicial’ one relate to the nature of the act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.”);Burns v. Reed,500 U.S. 478, 492, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547(1991)(“[T]he issuance of a search warrant is unquestionably a judicial act [.]”).Accordingly, the claims against the Judicial Defendants must, and will be, dismissed on the basis that those defendants are immune.

As to the remaining defendants, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's suit because, in effect, it challenges a state court judgment.Under the Rooker –Feldman abstention doctrine, the Supreme Court has made it very clear that “a party losing in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court, based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's federal rights.”Johnson v. De Grandy,512 U.S. 997, 1005–06, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775(1994)(citingRooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362(1923), andDist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206(1983));see alsoGray v....