Petition for Writ of Certiorari — In Re Rosalind Holmes, Petitioner

Appendix P

Butler County

86 Area III Court 1

AUG 19 2021

BUTLER COUNTY COURT, AREA III

9577 Beckett Rad - Suite 300 FILED

West Chester, Ohio 45069

Lakefront At West Chester, Lic : Case CVG 2100651

-VS- :

Holmes, Rosalind : FORCIBLE ENTRY

DETAINER ACTION

eek kw we ke ke eR oe

This matter came on for hearing on the Plaintiff/Landlord's (hereinafter

referred to as landlord) first cause of action on 08/18/2021 .

The court finds that all Defendants/Tenants (hereinafter referred to as tenant)

have been properly served within the time, and in the manner, prescribed by law

and that all parties were properly notified of the date and time of this hearing.

The landlord having failed to appear this cause is hereby dismissed

without prejudice.

The landlord having failed to prove the allegations of the

complaint by the required degree of proof, this case is hereby

dismissed.

xX The tenant has failed to file a responsive pleading and having failed

to appe faring they are in default and the allegations

cont adrictieyy aint are therefore admitted by the tenant to be

true.

ler

The landlord and tenant having both appeared and after considering

the pleadings and testimony of the parties and witnesses, if any, and

exhibits, if any, the court finds:

That the tenant was served with the notice required by ORC

section 1923.04 at least three days prior to the filing of the complaint

herein and that the landlord is entitled to restitution of the premised due

to:

The tenant's failure to timely pay rent that was que.

4 Court was set for 8:30am, but not heard till 9:00am. Defendant

did not appear for the hearing. Deny request for stay. Lease ended in

May 2021 and Defendant is still on property. Last rent paid through May

20, 2021. Has not paid any rent or posted a bond with this court or

Federal court. Plaintiff provided all proper notices to Defendant.

In favor of the tenant and orders the case dismissed with

costs to the landlord.

The case is hereby dismissed at the request of the

plaintiff.

It is therefore ordered that the tenant vacate the premises by the

27 day of August, 2021 by Noon PM

It is further ordered that a hearing on the plaintiff's

second cause of action is set for day of

at AM/PM

87

SA Gille, IB

Magistrate

THIS IS A FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER OF /THE CO T.

larbuyligulh him ae

Judge, C. Caparella-Kraemer

Appendix Q

Butler County

Area III Court

BUTLER COUNTY AREA III COURT AUG 26 2071

West Chester, Ohio 45069

(513) 867-5070 FILED

LAKEFRONT OF WEST CHESTER, : Case No. CVG2100651

LLC.

Plaintiff,

vs. : DECISION AND ENTRY DENYING

MOTION TO SET ASIDE

ROSALIND HOLMES

Defendant. : (FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER)

This matter has come before the court pursuant to Rosalind Holmes’s Motion To Set

Aside Eviction Judgment. The court has thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, and, for the

following reasons, the court denies her motion.

This eviction action was filed on June 16, 2021. The allegations were that Holmes’s

lease term was up and that Lakefront was not going to renew it with her. The matter was

scheduled for a hearing on June 30, but the day before, on June 29, Holmes filed a Notice of

Filing of Removal, claiming that she was attempting to have the eviction matter removed to

federal court. The court continued the case until July 7 in order for the parties to provide

authority regarding Holmes’s ability to remove a state eviction action to federal court.

At the July 7 hearing, the magistrate did grant Holmes’s request for a stay and ordered

plaintiff to notify this court once the federal court had decided the issue.

On July 19, the federal magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation that the

motion to remove be denied and that the eviction case be remanded to this court. On July 20,

this court, having been informed of the magistrate judge’s Recommendation, scheduled the

eviction hearing for August 18, 2021. Notice of this hearing was sent to both parties. On August

90

3, 2021, the federal court adopted in full the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate

judge, and formally remanded the eviction case to this court.

On August 10, Holmes filed in this court a Notice of Filing Of A Motion For A Stay And

Temporary Restraining Order In The U.S. District Court. In effect, Holmes was requesting a

second stay of the eviction proceedings. Crucially, as it pertains to the current motion to set

aside the eviction, Holmes, in her Conclusion at page 3, states: “Defendant respectfully provides

notice to this Court that she will not be attending the August 18, 2021 eviction proceedings in the

Area IIT Court.” And on August 16, two days before the eviction hearing, Holmes filed a Notice

Of The Filing Of An Emergency Motion For A Stay And Temporary Restraining Order And For

A Temporary Stay Pending Consideration Of The Motion In The U.S. Court Of Appeal For The

Sixth Circuit. Also on page 3 of that document, Holmes again announced that she would not be

attending the August 18 eviction hearing.

On August 18, the court called the case to be heard. Plaintiff was present and so was

counsel for plaintiff. Holmes was not present, nor did she call in to the court explaining that she

was sick and unable to appear. The case was called for a hearing shortly after 9:00 a.m., even

though it had been scheduled for 8:30 a.m. The court heard evidence in Holmes’s absence that

her lease was up in May, that she had paid rent through May 21, which was the end of her lease

term, that she had not paid any rent since that date, that Lakefront provided Holmes with a 30

day notice to vacate, followed by a 3 day notice, and that Holmes was still occupying the

property. In light of this testimony, the magistrate ordered Holmes to vacate the property by

August 27, 2021 at noon.

On August 24, Holmes filed the current motion to set aside the eviction judgment. She

claims in her motion that she was sick on August 18 with upper respiratory symptoms, vomiting,

91

etc. and that she was incapable of attending the hearing. She attached a note from Urgent Care,

which says nothing about what sjnipions Holmes may have had, what diagnosis the doctor

provided, or any other information about her illness. The note is dated on August 19, the day

after the eviction hearing, and states that Holmes can return to work on August 21.

The above facts indicate that there has been substantial delay in what is supposed to be an

expeditious and summary proceeding. See Showe Management Corp. v. Mountjoy, 12" Dist.,

2020-Ohio-2772. This court granted Holmes a stay until the federal court determined that it

would not hear the case. And then Holmes notified the court—-twice—that she had no intention

of appearing at the August 18 eviction hearing. At the time of the hearing, Holmes did not cal!

in to the court to explain that she was ill, could not attend, and request a further delay for that

reason. Instead, she waited until the day after the hearing to go to Urgent Care. Given Holmes’s

earlier statements in her filings that she did not intend to attend the hearing, the court is skeptical

about the true nature of her illness.

The court has considered all the above facts and determines that this case has been

delayed long enough. Holmes has had ample opportunity to oppose the eviction and has

succeeded in delaying it for three months. The court is not convinced that she was ill and could

not attend the August 18 hearing. Accordingly, Holmes’s request to set aside the eviction is

hereby DENIED.

Antu. /Br

Judge Colirtney Caparella-Kracmer

cc: Amy Higgins, Esq.

Rosalind Holmes

92

X__ A copy of the Decision and Entry Denying Motion to Set Aside in the above-captioned

matter was mailed to Plaintiff and Defendant this Ast” day of

August g 2021:

—s Jhhoewisia@,

Deputy Clerk ii

93

Appendix R

94

BUTLER COUNTY AREA III COURT peng County

West Chester, Ohio 45069 a IIT Court

(513) 867-5070 SEP 01 2021

LAKEFRONT OF WEST CHESTER, _: Case No. CVG2100651 FILED

LLC.

Plaintiff, i

vs.

ENTRY DENYING MOTION TO

ROSALIND HOLMES : RECONSIDER

Defendant.

On August 26, 2021, this court issued a Decision and Entry in which the court denied

Rosalind Holmes’s Motion to Set Aside her Eviction. The court denoted the Entry as a Final

Appealable Order. On August 30, 2021, Holmes filed a Motion to Reconsider this court’s

August 26 Entry. In support of her motion, Holmes attached additional documentation of her

illness that she claimed prevented her from appearing at the court’s August 18 hearing. She also

attached an email that she had sent to Lakefront to corroborate her complaint that Lakefront was

harassing her by allowing foul odors to circulate through her air conditioning vents. Finally, she

attached some documents purporting to verify that she had contacted the court on two occasions

on August 18.

Despite Holmes’s claims that she was unable to attend the August 18 hearing, this court

denied her Motion to Set Aside the eviction on August 26. This was a final, appealable order.

Holmes has now asked the court to reconsider that final order. But the law is quite clear that a

court has no authority to reconsider its decision once it has been incorporated into a final,

appealable order. Any decision purporting to reconsider it is a nullity and is ineffective. Pitts v.

Ohio Department of Transportation, 67 Ohio St.2d 378, 423 N.E.2d 1105 (1981)(syllabus); State

v. Taggart, 12" Dist., 2021-Ohio-1350, §12. This court therefore has no authority to reconsider

its August 26 Decision, and, for that reason, the Motion to Reconsider is hereby DENIED.

Judge Courtney Caparella-Kraemer

cc: Amy Higgins, Esq.

Rosalind Holmes

x A copy of the Entry Denying Motion to Reconsider in the above-captioned matter was

mailed to Plaintiff and Defendant this | day of Ss, eplem ber , 2021.

Deputy Clerk a

From:

96 09/03/2021 16:44 #008 P.cO3s

FILED BUTLER CO.

. wie Vv COURT OF APPEALS |

4 i) i

wi iP 1 ay MARY L. SWAIN i

wan He i st IN THE COURINOF APPEALS OF BUTLER COUNTY, OHIO

| Vent of |

LAKEFRONT AT WEST CHESTER, CASE NO. dxnone-co-108

LLC, ACCELERATED CALENDAR

Appellee, .

vs, a NYING E N

MOTION FOR STAY PENDING

ROSALIND HOLMES, APPEAL

Appellant. .

The above cause is before the court pursuant to an emergency motion for stay

pending appeal filed by appeitant, Rosalind Holmes, on September 3, 2021.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, the motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. |

Robin N. Piper, Jui

$

Mike Powell, Judge

2021-09-03 14:55 43447 >> 5138873966 -

Pp 3/3

97

Appendix S

Case: 1:21-cv-00505-TSB-SKB Doc #: 8 Filed: 08/23/21 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 1386

98

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

ROSALIND HOLMES, Case No. 1:21-cv-505

Plaintiff,

Black, J.

vs. Bowman, M.J.

LAKEFRONT AT WEST CHESTER, LLC,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a resident of Cincinnati, brings this action against Lakefront at West

Chester, LLC. By separate Order issued this date, plaintiff has been granted leave to

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is before the Court

for a sua sponte review of plaintiffs complaint to determine whether the complaint, or any

portion of it, should be dismissed because it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).

In enacting the original in forma pauperis statute, Congress recognized that a

“litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying

litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive

lawsuits.” Denton v. Hemandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To prevent such abusive litigation, Congress has authorized

federal courts to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if they are satisfied that the action

is frivolous or malicious. /d.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint may be

dismissed as frivolous when the plaintiff cannot make any claim with a rational or arguable

Case: 1:21-cv-00505-TSB-SKB Doc #: 8 Filed: 08/23/21 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 1387

99

basis in fact or law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328-29 (1989); see also Lawler v.

Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990). An action has no arguable legal basis

when the defendant is immune from suit or when plaintiff claims a violation of a legal

interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. An action has no arguable

factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or

“wholly incredible.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32; Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199. The Court need

not accept as true factual allegations that are “fantastic or delusional” in reviewing a

complaint for frivolousness. Hilf v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting

Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328).

Congress also has authorized the sua sponte dismissal of complaints that fail to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii). A

complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff must be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,

94 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). By the same

token, however, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,

to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also

Hill, 630 F.3d at 470-71 (“dismissal standard articulated in /qbal and Twombly governs

dismissals for failure to state a claim’ under §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)).

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows

the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

alleged.” /qbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Court must accept

all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but need not “accept as true a legal conclusion

Case: 1:21-cv-00505-TSB-SKB Doc #: 8 Filed: 08/23/21 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 1388

100

couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain,

478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual

allegations,” it must provide “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmedme accusation.” /qbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A pleading

that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause

of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders

“naked assertion[s]’ devoid of “further factual enhancement.” /d. at 557. The complaint

must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which

it rests.” Enckson, 551 U.S. at 93 (citations omitted).

Here, Plaintiffs complaint arises out of Plaintiffs eviction from Defendant's

property. Plaintiff asserts the eviction violates her civil rights and also asks the court to

issue a temporary restraining order preventing the eviction. Upon careful review, the

undersigned finds that Plaintiffs complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted in this federal court.

Notably, the Court will not interfere with any pending state eviction proceedings. A

federal court must decline to interfere with pending state proceedings involving important

State interests unless extraordinary circumstances are present. See Younger v. Hams,

401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971). Abstention is appropriate if: (1) state proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state

proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions. Middlesex County

Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982).

To the extent eviction or other state proceedings are pending against the plaintiff

in connection with her ownership or occupancy of property, all three factors supporting

Case: 1:21-cv-00505-TSB-SKB Doc #: 8 Filed: 08/23/21 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 1389

101

abstention exist. The matters presented in the plaintiffs Complaint implicate important

state interests, see Doscher v. Menifee Circuit Court, No. 03-5229, 2003 WL 22220534

(6th Cir. Sept. 24, 2003); and there is no indication the plaintiff could not raise valid federal

concerns in the context of an ongoing state proceeding.

Accordingly, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

and should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).

Accordingly, for these reasons, it is therefore RECOMMENDED this action be

DISMISSED with PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim for relief. It is further

RECOMMENDED that the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that for the

foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation

would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma

pauperis.

s/ Stephanie K. Bowman

Stephanie K. Bowman

United States Magistrate Judge

102

‘(LE6L IO WN9) Z¥6 PZ'4 BEO ‘SuAHENMA ‘A SA}EIS PayUN {GE6L) OVL “SN vZy ‘Wy ‘A

sewoys 99g ‘jeedde uo syybu yayioy Aew einpacoid siujy WM BQUep!0I0e UI SUO}Oa!go

OWEW 0} BIN|Ie4 “SUONdaIGo asoy) jo Adoo eB UM pafues Buleg Joye SAVG NS3SLYNOS

uIuyIM SsUOnoelgo sjUeuoddo Ue 0} puodsa: jyeys AUed y ‘suolNselqo au) jo poddns

ul Me] JO WNpuBOWEW e Aq peluedwosoe aq |/eys pue ‘0} payoelgo ~zPy ely $0 (s)UOIod

ou) Ayloeds |jeys SUuoNoelgo |iy “ew JO UCISUa}Xxe UB JO} apis Jeyye Aq UONOW Aja}

UO yNOD ay}; Aq JayyNy pepue)xe eq Aew poued yey, yoosey, Adoo & yIM panies Bulog

JOYE SAV (PL) NSSLYNOS IU (,494,,) UORBPUaULODEY 9 WOdeY SI4) 0} SUO}Ie/Go

uayUM ‘oyioeds aly pue eves Aew Ayed Aue ‘(q)zZ ‘dg “AID “Y ‘pe4 0} JUeNSING

JSILON

‘juepugjog

‘OTT 'YSLSSHO LSSM LV LNOYSSNVT

‘TW ‘uBwMog "SA

fT ‘yoerlg

‘whureld

GOS-AD-L2:) ON eseD ‘SSIIOH GNINVSON

NOISIAIG NY3SLSSM

OIHO JO LOINLSIC NYSHLNOS

LYNOS LOINLSIO SALVLS GSLINN

OGET :# GIZDWd JOS :abed TZ/EZ/80 :Palld 8 :# 900 GYS-GS1-SOSO0-AI-TZ:T :aseD

103

Appendix T

Case: 1:21-cv-00505-TSB-SKB Doc #: 12 fon 08/26/21 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 1618

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Rosalind Holmes, : Case No. 1:21-cv-505

Plaintiff, ) Judge Timothy S. Black

VS. | Magistrate Judge Stephanie K.

Bowman

Lakefront at West Chester, LLC

Defendant.

DECISION AND ENTRY

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 8)

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United

States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the

Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on August 23, 2021

submitted a Report and Recommendations (the “Report”). (Docs. 8). Plaintiff Rosalind

Holmes submitted her objection to the Report on August 25, 2021. With her objections,

Plaintiff has also submitted a second motion for temporary restraining order and

preliminary injunction (Doc. 9), and an emergency motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. 11),

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all

of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds that the

Report is adopted and Plaintiff's objections are overruled. Plaintiff's motions filed after’

the Magistrate Judge issued the Report are also denied.

Case: 1:21-cv-00505-TSB-SKB Doc #: 12 fos 08/26/21 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 1619

Plaintiff Rosalind Holmes, proceeding pro se, brings this action against Defendant

Lakefront at West Chester, LLC. According to Plaintiff's filings, she currently resides at

one of Defendant’s properties and is asking this Court to stay her eviction and/or eviction

proceedings. Plaintiffs recent filings indicate that she has now been evicted and ordered

to vacate her premises by August 27, 2021. (Doc. 9 at PageID# 1419).

In the Report, the Magistrate Judge first found that Plaintiff's complaint failed to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 8 at 3). This Court agrees.

Plaintiff's 378-page complaint with exhibits is a recitation of her litigation history with

Defendant.’ Even liberally construing Plaintiffs complaint, she fails to state a claim.

Moreover, Plaintiff's objection does nothing to cure this deficiency or otherwise convince

this Court that Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for relief. (Doc. 51).

The Magistrate Judge also noted that Younger abstention applies in this case.

(Doc. 8 at 3). As explained by the Sixth Circuit:

| See, e.g., Holmes v, Lakefront at West Chester, 1:21-cv-444 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 2021) (Diott, J.;

Litkovitz, M.J.), appeal dismissed at No. 21-3731 (6th Cir, Aug. 17, 2021); Holmes v. U.S.A., et

al., No. 1:20-cv-825 (S.D. Ohio) (McFarland, J.; Litkovitz, M.J.), appeals at No, 21-3715, 21-

03521, 21-03491, 21-03206 (6th Cir.); Holmes v. Lakefront at West Chester, No. CV 2021-05-

0638 (Butler Cty. Ct. Com. Pl. filed May 7, PEA, (located at

iipa.b g sults.page) (last accessed 8/26/2021); see also

Lakefront at West Chester v. Holmes, CVG 2100528 (Butler Cty. Area III Ct. filed June 16,

2021); Lakefront at West Chester v. Holmes, CVG 2100528 (Butler Cty. Area III Ct. filed May

14, 2021); Holmes v. Lakefront at West Chester, No. CVF2001041, REQ00007 (Butler Cty. Area

lil Ct. filed Nov. 2, 2020), appeal at CA-2021-05-0046 (Ohio 12th Dist. Ct. App.) (all Butler

County Area III cases located at: http://docket.bcareacourts.org/) (last accessed 8/26/2021).

This Court may take judicial notice of court records that are available online to members of the

public. See Lynch v. Leis, 382 F.3d 642, 648 n.5 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Lyons v. Stovall, 188 F.3d

327, 332 n.3 (6th Cir. 1999)).

Case: 1:21-cv-00505-TSB-SKB Doc #: 12 Fre 08/26/21 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: 1620

We generally are obliged to decide cases within the scope of

federal jurisdiction, However, in certain circumstances,

allowing a federal suit to proceed threatens undue interference

with state proceedings, and the proper course is for the federal

court to abstain from entertaining the action.

The Younger breed of abstention requires abstention in three

different circumstances.... The Supreme Court has noted that

these three categories are the exception rather than the

Tule. First, we may abstain under Younger when there is an

ongoing state criminal prosecution. Second, we may abstain

when there is a civil enforcement proceeding that is akin to a

criminal prosecution. Third, we may abstain when there is a

civil proceeding involving certain orders that are uniquely in

furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial

functions.

Aaron v. O'Connor, 914 F.3d 1010, 1016 (6th Cir. 2019) (internal quotations and

Citations omitted).

Once a court determines that a case falls into one of the three exceptional

categories and Younger abstention may apply, the Court should “next analyze{s] the case

‘using a three-factor test laid out in Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State

Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982).” Id. (quotation omitted). “If (1) state proceedings are

currently pending; (2) the proceedings involve an important state interest; and (3) the

state proceedings will provide the federal plaintiff with an adequate opportunity to raise

his constitutional claims, we may abstain from hearing the federal claim.” Jd. (quotation

omitted). The Magistrate Judge found all three factors present when noting Younger

abstention applies.

Since the Magistrate Judge issued the Report, Plaintiff now states that her eviction

proceedings have concluded, and she was evicted. (Doc. 9 at 1), Thus, Younger no

Case: 1:21-cv-00505-TSB-SKB Doc #: 12 a ee 08/26/21 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 1621

longer applies to her eviction proceedings because those proceedings are no longer

currently pending.”

To the extent her eviction proceedings have not concluded, her primary request for

relief — an injunction and stay of her eviction proceedings — is prohibited by the Anti-

Injunction Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 2283 (“A court of the United States may not grant an

injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of

Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its

judgments.”); see also Wells v. DLJ Mortg. Capitol Inc., No. 1:14-CV-767, 2014 WL

5587561, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 3, 2014) (request to stay state court eviction proceeding

prohibited pursuant to Anti-Injunction Act); E3A v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 13--10277,

2013 WL 784339 (E.D. Mich. Mar.1, 2013) (request to stay writ of eviction prohibited

pursuant to the Anti-Injunction Act) (citing Cragin v. Comerica Mortgage Co., No. 94—

2246, 1995 WL 626292 (6th Cir. Oct. 24, 1995) (finding that the Anti-Injunction Act

“generally precludes federal injunctions that would stay pending foreclosure proceedings

in the state courts.”)).

Finally, a facial reading of Plaintiff's complaint indicates that Plaintiff is asking

this Court to grant her relief from injuries caused in her state court proceedings, including

* To the extent her proceedings are still pending, there is a strong argument Younger applies.

Although Plaintiff fails to state a claim, she lists two causes of action for housing discrimination

based on race. Discrimination claims may be asserted as part of an eviction proceeding in Ohio

courts. See, e.g., Lable & Co. v. Flowers, 661 N.E.2d 782, 786 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (“A

legitimate argument can be made that defendant was required to raise her discrimination claim in

response to the eviction proceeding as a compulsory counterclaim.”). Thus, she has an adequate

opportunity to assert her discrimination claims in her state court proceedings to the extent those

proceedings are still pending.

Case: 1:21-cv-00505-TSB-SKB Doc #: 12 ap 08/26/21 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 1622

her now-concluded eviction proceeding. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits federal

courts, other than the United States Supreme Court, from performing appellate review of

state court rulings. Lawrence v. Welch, 531 F.3d 364, 368 (6th Cir. 2008); see also

Givens v. Homecomings Fin., 278 F. App’x 607, 609 (6th Cir.2008) (affirming dismissal

under Rooker-Fediman where the primary relief that plaintiff requested was a temporary

injunction that would “enjoin Defendants from physically entering onto plaintiff[‘]s

property” and that would “dispos[e] ... of any other civil or procedural action regardin £

the subject property”).

However, notwithstanding Younger, Rooker-Feldman, and the Anti-Injunction act,

the Court has sua sponte reviewed Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Plaintiff's claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)ii).

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:

1. The Report and Recommendations (Doc. 8) is ADOPTED, as expanded

upon here;

2. Plaintiff's objection (Doc. 51) is OVERRULED;

3. Plaintiff's motion for an emergency stay and temporary restraining order;

amended motion for a stay, emergency temporary restraining order and/or

preliminary injunctive relief, and emergency motion for the appointment of

counsel (Docs. 3, 9, 11) are DENIED;

4. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice;

5. The Court CERTIFIES that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), any appeal

of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore DENIES

Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis, and

6. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is

TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.

Case: 1:21-cv-00505-TSB-SKB Doc #: 12 foo 08/26/21 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 1623

Furthermore, while the Court gives some deference to pro se litigants, it will not

permit any litigant to use the Court’s resources to address filings clearly designed to

harass the Court, opposing counsel, or the opposing party. Federal courts have both the

inherent power and constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct

which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions. See, e.g., Hiles v. NovaStar

Mortg., No. 1:12-cv-392, 2016 WL 454895 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 5, 2016).

There is “nothing unusual about imposing prefiling restrictions in matters with a

history of repetitive or vexatious litigation.” Feathers v. Chevon U.S.A., Inc., 141 F.3d

264, 269 (6th Cir. 1998). To achieve these ends, the Sixth Circuit has approved enjoining

vexatious and harassing litigants by requiring them to obtain leave of court before

submitting additional filings. Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145, 1146 (6th Cir. 1987).

Plaintiff has already filed two motion for emergency relief in this case alone,

requesting the undersigned to stay her eviction proceedings. She has also filed notices of

appeal in her other two federal court cases, requesting that the Sixth Circuit stay her

eviction. See Holmes v. Lakefront at West Chester, 1:21-cv-444 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 3,

2021), appeal dismissed at No. 21-3731 (6th Cir. Aug. 17, 2021); Holmes v. U.S.A., et

al., No. 1:20-cv-825 (S.D. Ohio), appeal dismissed at No. 21-3715 (6th Cir. Aug. 17,

2021). Based on these repetitive tactics, Plaintiffs must seek leave of Court before

submitting any additional filings in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 8/26/2021 s/Timothy S. Black

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge

110

Appendix U

Case: 21-3791 Document: _ 4 Filed: 09/07/2021 Page: 1 (1 of 4)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540

Deborah S. Hunt POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE Tel. (513) 564-7000

Clerk CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988 Www.caG, USCOUITS. 2OV

Filed: September 07, 2021

Ms. Rosalind Holmes

4557 Wyndtree Drive

Apartment 145

West Chester, OH 45069

Re: Case No. 21-3791, Rosalind Holmes v. Lakefront At West Chester, LLC

Originating Case No. : 1:21-cv-00505

Dear Ms. Holmes,

The Court issued the enclosed Order today in this case.

Sincerely yours,

s/Roy G. Ford

Case Manager

Direct Dial No. 513-564-7016

cc: Mr. Richard W. Nagel

Enclosure

Case: 21-3791 Document: a 2 Filed: 09/07/2021 Page: 1 (2 of 4)

No. 21-3791 FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS | opi 8 HUNT, Ce

ROSALIND HOLMES, )

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. ORDER

LAKEFRONT AT WEST CHESTER, LLC,

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: GIBBONS and DONALD, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Rosalind Holmes appeals a district court order dismissing with prejudice her

claims against Lakefront at West Chester, LLC (“Lakefront”) relating to her state court eviction

proceedings. She now moves for an emergency stay of her eviction by the Butler County

Sheriff's Office, which is scheduled for today, September 7, 2021, and for related injunctive

relief.

We consider four factors in determining whether a stay pending appeal should issue: 1)

“whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that [sJhe is likely to succeed on the

merits”; 2) the likelihood the “applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay”; 3) “whether

issuance of the stay will substantially injure” other interested parties; and 4) “where the public

interest lies.” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987), The first two factors “are the most

critical.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). “These factors are not prerequisites that

must be met, but are interrelated considerations that must be balanced together.” Mich. Coal. of

Case: 21-3791 Document: a Filed: 09/07/2021 Page: 2

No. 21-3791

=e

Radioactive Material Users v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 153 (6th Cir. 1991). While the party

seeking a stay “need not always establish a high probability of success on the merits,” the party

“is still required to show, at a minimum, ‘serious questions going to the merits,’” Jd. at 153-54

(quoting Jn re DeLorean Motor Co., 755 F.2d 1223, 1229 (6th Cir. 1985).

The district court found that it was precluded from granting the relief Holmes sought-—

from injuries she suffered in her state court proceedings—by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,

which prohibits federal courts, other than the United States Supreme Court, from performing

appellate review of state court rulings. Lawrence v. Welch, 531 F.3d 364, 368 (6th Cir. 2008).

Notwithstanding Rooker-Feldman, the district court dismissed Holmes’s claims for failure to

state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Holmes alleges that her claims in the district

court were not barred by Rooker-Feldman because they alleged wrongdoing and fraud in the

state court proceedings, which are independent from the injury caused by the state court’s ruling.

See id. at 369 (distinguishing that claims that defendants committed fraud in the state court

proceedings establish an independent injury not caused by the state court judgment and are not

barred by Rooker-Feldman). However, the relief Holmes sought in the district court was the

same she is requesting here: a stay of her eviction from Lakefront pursuant to the state court’s

judgment against her. When “the source of the injury is the state court decision, then the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine would prevent the district court from asserting jurisdiction.” Jd. at

368. Holmes sought relief in the district court from the state court’s order of her eviction. Thus,

the district court was precluded from reviewing the state court’s decision. Further, the district

court found no merit to Holmes’s claims. While Plaintiff alleges significant harm, she has not

shown the requisite likelihood of success on the merits of her appeal. See Tiger Lily, LLC v.

(3 of 4)

Case: 21-3791 Document: oe P Filed: 09/07/2021 Page:3 (4 of 4)

No. 21-3791

3

United States Dept. of Hous. and Urban Dev., 992 F.3d 518, 524 (6th Cir. 2021) (“Given that the

{movant] is unlikely to succeed on the merits, we need not consider the remaining stay factors.”).

Accordingly, the motion for an emergency stay is DENIED.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Mh Adel

Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk

[OCR skipped on page(s) 31-120]

[Read from a scan; the first 30 pages.]