United States v. Bommer
| Citation | 613 F.Supp.3d 712 |
| Docket Number | 1:19-CV-00823 EAW, 1:19-cv-01016 EAW |
| Decision Date | 21 April 2020 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America Relator Nyanchiew Sabat Gachgatwech, Plaintiff, v. Loran M. BOMMER, et al., Defendants. United States of America Relator Nyanchiew Sabat Gachgatwech, Plaintiff, v. Family Court Division of Erie County, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
United States of America Relator Nyanchiew Sabat Gachgatwech, Buffalo, NY, pro se.
INTRODUCTION
Pro se plaintiff Nyanchiew Sabat Gachgatwech ("Plaintiff") filed two actions, purportedly alleging civil rights violations—United States of America Relator Nyanchiew Sabat Gachgatwech v. Bommer, et al. , No. 1:19-cv-00823-EAW (the "Bommer Action") and United States of America Relator Nyanchiew Sabat Gachgatwech v. Family Court Division of Erie County, et al. , No. 1:19-cv-01016 EAW (the "Family Court Action"). (Dkt. B-1; Dkt. F-1).2 Plaintiff has also filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and affirmations of poverty in support thereof. (Dkt. B-2; Dkt. F-2). Because the Complaints in each of these actions suffer from similar defects, the Court has considered them together.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's motions for in forma pauperis status and they are granted. The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff's Complaints (Dkt. B-1; Dkt. F-1) as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and finds that Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed. However, Plaintiff will be granted an opportunity to remedy certain of the defects as discussed below.
The following facts are taken from Plaintiff's Complaints. (Dkt. B-1; Dkt. F-1). Although Plaintiff's allegations are disjointed and difficult to discern, as is required at this stage of the proceedings, the Court treats Plaintiff's factual claims as true.
In the Bommer Action, Plaintiff asserts claims against defendants Loran M. Bommer ("Bommer"), Sabrie Mouss ("Mouss"), and the Buffalo City Court (collectively, the "Bommer Defendants"). (Dkt. B-1). Plaintiff rented a property for two and a half years from Mouss. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff requested Mouss make repairs to damaged items in the property. (Id. ). However, Mouss never made the repairs. (Id. ). Plaintiff alleges that Bommer and Mouss "conspire[d] against [Plaintiff's] business name[, and] refused to provide [her with a] landlord statement." (Id. ). Sometime thereafter, Mouss, through his or her counsel Bommer, instituted eviction proceedings against Plaintiff. (See id. ). On June 19, 2019, a warrant was issued to evict Plaintiff from the property. (Id. at 7).
Plaintiff alleges that she was not properly served as her office was closed when Bommer "served the unsigned [petition] by [the] [j]udge." (Id. ). Plaintiff alleges that the Buffalo City Court "document" ordering her eviction was an illegal order because it did not list the name or signature of the issuing judge. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff further alleges that "[her] office did not get a chance to be present in a court of law." (Id. ). The gravamen of Plaintiff's Complaint appears to be that she was wrongfully evicted from the property without appropriate process of law. (Id. at 5 ( )).
In the Family Court Action, Plaintiff asserts claims against defendants Family Court Division of Erie County ("Erie County Family Court"), Erie County, Buffalo City Court, New York State Department of State, Erie County Family Court Judge Mary G. Carney, Erie County Family Court Support Magistrate John J. Aman, Erie County Clerk Michael P. Kearns, Erie County District Attorney John J. Flynn, and Buffalo City Court Judges Betty Calvo-Torres and Debra Givens (collectively, the "Family Court Defendants"). (Dkt. B-1 at 2-3).
Plaintiff alleges that Judge Carney removed Plaintiff's son from her custody "without [a] lawful claim." (Id. at 5). Plaintiff also alleges that the Erie County Clerk's Office and the Erie County District Attorney's Office "ignored the case." (Id. ). Plaintiff further alleges that her two vehicles were towed by "the Buffalo City Police, under Buffalo City Court," and that the Buffalo City Police and the New York State Police issued false arrest warrants. (Id. ). Plaintiff further alleges that despite no "ev[i]dence of measurable disease," Judge Givens ordered Plaintiff undergo a mental health evaluation by an unlicensed doctor at the Erie County Mental Health Clinic. (Id. ).
Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asks the Court to return her son and vehicles. (Id. at 6). Plaintiff also requests that the Court order the removal of the restriction on Plaintiff's "social security number account credits to discharges public and private debt," and that the Court stop "public servants conducting commercial transactions on [Plaintiff's] social security number." (Id. ).
Plaintiff's motions for in forma pauperis status and affirmations of poverty in support thereof have been reviewed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff has met the statutory requirements for in forma pauperis status and permission to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Court now turns to its obligation to screen Plaintiff's Complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
" Section 1915 requires the Court to conduct an initial screening of complaints filed by civil litigants proceeding in forma pauperis , to ensure that the case goes forward only if it meets certain requirements." Guess v. Jahromi , No. 6:17-CV-06121(MAT), 2017 WL 1063474, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2017), reconsideration denied , No. 6:17-CV-06121(MAT), 2017 WL 1489142 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2017). In evaluating the complaint, a court must accept as true all of the plaintiff's factual allegations and must draw all inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See, e.g. , Larkin v. Savage , 318 F.3d 138, 139 (2d Cir. 2003). Upon conducting this initial screening, a court must dismiss the case pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B) "if the [c]ourt determines that the action (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." Eckert v. Schroeder, Joseph & Assocs. , 364 F. Supp. 2d 326, 327 (W.D.N.Y. 2005).
Plaintiff's submissions and the allegations contained therein are characteristic of claims by "sovereign citizens." For example, Plaintiff refers to her name as a "trademark name," repeatedly refers to other individuals as "corporations," and claims to be "the sovereign power and tribunal of record" for her own "sovereign nation state." (See, e.g. , Dkt. F-1 at 7-9, 18).
The Second Circuit has described "sovereign citizens" as "a loosely affiliated group who believe that the state and federal governments lack constitutional legitimacy and therefore have no authority to regulate their behavior." United States v. Ulloa , 511 F. App'x 105, 107 n.1 (2d Cir. 2013). "The ‘sovereign citizen’ belief system has been described by other courts as ‘completely without merit,’ ‘patently frivolous,’ United States v. Jagim , 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992), and having ‘no conceivable validity in American law,’ United States v. Schneider , 910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th Cir. 1990)." Wellington v. Foland , No. 3:19-CV-0615 (GTS/ML), 2019 WL 3315181, at *10 (N.D.N.Y. July 24, 2019). Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff's claims are premised on her rights as a "sovereign citizen," those claims are dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Liberally construing Plaintiff's Complaints, it appears that Plaintiff requests the Court to review the validity of her eviction and child custody proceedings. However, the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over landlord-tenant and child custody disputes. See Rosquist v. St Marks Realty Assoc., LLC , No. 08-CV-2764 (NGG), 2008 WL 2965435, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2008) (); Torres v. Family Court/Administration for Children's Servs. , No. 01 CIV. 4351(RWS), 2001 WL 1111510, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2001) ().
Further, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks review of previous state judicial proceedings, such review is barred by the Rooker - Feldman doctrine. The long-standing Rooker - Feldman doctrine "provides that, in most circumstances, the lower federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to review final judgments of state courts." Morrison v. City of N.Y. , 591 F.3d 109, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 482-83, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983), Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413, 414-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923) ).
"[C]ourts consistently apply the Rooker - Feldman doctrine when dismissing matters arising from summary process or eviction proceedings in a state court." Ratcliffe v. Liberty Home Equity , No. 3:19-CV-01842 (KAD), 2019 WL 6135446, at *2 (D. Conn. Nov. 19, 2019) (collecting cases). Courts also routinely dismiss cases involving child custody orders on the basis that such actions are barred by the Rooker - Feldman doctrine. See Hagy v. New York...
To continue reading
Request your trial