Garrison v. Deutsche Bank National Trust

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

JACQUALYNN GARRISON and

OSAMAH A. BAKRI PLAINTIFFS

V. CASE NO. 5:18-CV-05084

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST, et al. DEFENDANTS

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Jacqualynn Garrison and Osamah A. Bakri filed this pro se action and

submitted an application to proceed in forma pauparis (“IFP”) (Docs. 2, 8). On May 13,

2018, the Court entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs’ Application to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis. (Doc. 13). The Court also directed Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint.

The Amended Complaint was filed on June 13, 2018, and names the following

Defendants: Robert M. Wilson at Wilson and Associates, Leslie N. Mann at Mackie Wolf

Zientz & Mann, P.C., Deutsche Bank National Trust, Ocwen Financial Corporation,

Ocwen Loan Servicing, Kash Construction and Management, Inc., Altisource, Benton

County Sheriff's Office, and Bentonville Police Department. (Doc. 14).

According to the Amended Complaint, Bakri “was unlawfully served with a Writ of

Assistance at his home to evacuate his home by members of the Benton County Sheriff

and later was forced by members of the police from the sheriff's office to leave the land

and dwelling commonly known as 1201 SW 2” Street, in Benton County, Arkansas.”

(Doc. 14 at6). Bakri claims he was arrested for refusing to leave his home, and he further

claims he was arrested and ticketed several more times that same week. He and

Garrison assert that these events “resulted from a wrongful foreclosure and fraudulent

conveyance of title by Defendant(s) to assume presumptive ownership by allegedly

enforcing a deficient Default Judgment that lacked subject matter jurisdiction and

improper venue.” /d. at 8. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and have

also moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. See Docs. 3, 7,

14.

Under the provisions of the IFP statute, the Court is obligated to screen any

complaint in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court

is to dismiss the case if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief

may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

relief. fd. Although both Plaintiffs qualify from a financial standpoint for IFP status, the

face of the Amended Complaint fails to establish any plausible basis for federal subject-

matter jurisdiction.

“The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter ‘spring[s]

from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States’ and is ‘inflexible and

without exception.” Stee! Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998)

(quoting Mansfield, C. & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884)). In the Amended

Complaint, Plaintiffs maintain that the basis for federal jurisdiction is “[d]iversity of

citizenship.” See Doc. 14 at 4. However, diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity

of citizenship between the parties and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000.

28 U.S.C. § 1332. Northport Health Servs. of Ark., LLC v. Rutherford, 605 F.3d 483, 486

(8th Cir. 2010). The Plaintiffs claim to be citizens of Arkansas. (Doc. 14 at 4, 5). They

further claim that Defendants Robert M. Wilson and Leslie N. Mann are citizens of

Arkansas. /d. at 2. Accordingly, complete diversity of citizenship does not exist. Walker

v. Norwest Corp., 108 F.3d 158, 162 (8th Cir. 1997) (‘It is, to say the least, well settled

that federal diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity, so that no defendant is a

citizen of the same state as any plaintiff.”).

Plaintiffs also suggest in a different section of their Amended Complaint that there

are multiple federal questions at issue in the case. When directed to list any “specific

federal statutes, federal treaties, and/or provisions of the United States Constitution that

are at issue,” they cite the following: “Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

Public Policy HJR-192,1 CLAYTON ACT, 15 U.S.C. §§ 12-27, 29 U.S.C. §§ 52-53, 15

U.S. Code § 1692e, 42 U.S. Code § 1988 42 U.S. Code § 1986, 12 U.S. Code § 3708.”

(Doc. 14 at 5). Under the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” federal jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1331 exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of a

properly pleaded complaint. Magee v. Exxon Corp., 135 F.3d 599, 601 (8th Cir. 1998).

Upon careful review of the Amended Complaint, the Court finds that the factual

allegations fail to state a claim under any federal statute. Plaintiffs have—frivolously and

nonsensically—cited to the Uniform Commercial Code and a litany of federal statutes in

their Amended Complaint without attempting to explain how the facts of their case support

a cause of action arising under these laws. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint (Doc.

14) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as frivolous and for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction under both 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

IT 1S SO ORDERED on this q5% day of Jung, 2018.

bss

MOTHY poageis

UNITED STA DISTRICT JUDGE

' House Joint Resolution 192 of 1933 involved the suspension of the gold standard.

H.J.R. 192, 73d Cong. (1933). See also Holyoke Water Co. v. American Writing Paper

Co., 300 U.S. 324, 339 n.1 (1937) (setting forth the joint resolution).