Decormier v. Nationstar Servicers, LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOYCE DECORMIER, No. 1:20-cv-00062-DAD-JLT 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SUA 14 NATIONSTAR SERVICERS, LLC, and SPONTE DISMISSING ACTION JAY BREY 15 (Doc. No. 4) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Joyce Decormier is proceeding pro se with this civil action seeking to enforce an 18 alleged arbitration award. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On September 3, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and 21 issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice 22 as frivolous. (Doc. No. 4 at 2–3.) The magistrate judge found that plaintiff’s filing of this action 23 is wholly frivolous and based on a fraudulent attempt to extract money from defendants using 24 false and fraudulent arbitration awards. (Doc. No. 4 at 2–3.) The pending findings and 25 recommendations were served on plaintiff1 and contained notice that any objections thereto were 26 27 1 The court notes that although served on plaintiff by mail directed to her address of record, on October 7, 2020, the findings and recommendations were returned to the court by the U.S. Postal 28 Service as undeliverable with the notation “Refused – She Lives Here” 1 to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 8.) To date, no objections to the 2 findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned will 5 decline to adopt the findings and recommendations for the reasons explained below. 6 The findings and recommendations refer to screening requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1915A(b), and § 1915(e)(2), which apply to actions brought by prisoners, and provide that the 8 court shall dismiss a complaint if it is “frivolous or malicious.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). (Id. at 1.) 9 Relying on that provision, the magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and determined that 10 the complaint was frivolous. (Id. at 3.) 11 Here, however, those screening requirements and provisions are not applicable in this 12 case because plaintiff is not a prisoner. Nevertheless, the findings and recommendations have 13 alerted the undersigned to the purported deficiencies in plaintiff’s complaint, including that 14 plaintiff bases her lawsuit on an arbitration award that was not obtained in a legitimate arbitration 15 and is in fact a fraudulent document that is not legally enforceable. (Doc. No. 4 at 3.) In light of 16 the magistrate judge’s thorough review of the record in this case and the record in another case 17 pending before this court in which plaintiff has been sued for allegedly engaging in this same 18 fraudulent arbitration award scheme, the undersigned agrees with the magistrate judge’s finding 19 that plaintiff’s complaint in this action is wholly frivolous and will dismiss plaintiff’s complaint 20 on that basis. 21 A frivolous complaint “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. 22 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “A complaint may be dismissed as ‘factually frivolous’ only 23 if the facts alleged are ‘clearly baseless’ which encompasses allegations that are fanciful, fantastic 24 and delusional.” Frost v. Office of Attorney Gen., No. 17-cv-04983-JSW, 2018 WL 6704137, at 25 *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2018) (citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)). “A federal 26 claim which is so insubstantial as to be patently without merit cannot serve as the basis for federal 27 jurisdiction.” Tr. v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., No. 2:16-cv-1237-ODW-SS, 2016 WL 756461, at *2 28 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2016) (sua sponte dismissing the complaint after concluding that “the 1 complaint is frivolous, provides insubstantial support for federal subject matter jurisdiction, and 2 cannot be amended to state a claim for which relief can be granted”) (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 3 415 U.S. 528, 537–38 (1974) (noting that “federal courts are without power to entertain claims 4 otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely 5 devoid of merit, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, plainly unsubstantial, or no longer 6 open to discussion”)); see also Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (noting that “a 7 district court may, at any time, sua sponte, dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter 8 jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the 9 allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of 10 merit, or no longer open to discussion”). 11 The undersigned agrees with the magistrate judge’s findings that plaintiff’s complaint 12 filed in this action is baseless, fraudulent, devoid of merit, and wholly frivolous. (See Doc. No. 13 4.) Accordingly, the court will sua sponte dismiss plaintiff’s frivolous complaint for lack of 14 subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See Neitzke, 490 U.S. 15 at 327 n.6 (courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider “patently insubstantial” complaints); 16 see also Bikle v. Santos, No. 13-cv-1662-DOC-JPR, 2013 WL 12084155, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 17 13, 2013), aff’d, 609 F. App’x 424 (9th Cir. 2015) (“The Court may [] sua sponte dismiss a 18 frivolous, patently insubstantial complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal 19 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).”); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984) 20 (“A paid complaint that is obviously frivolous does not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction 21 and may be dismissed sua sponte before service of process.”). 22 Accordingly, 23 1. The court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations issued on 24 September 3, 2020 (Doc. No. 4); 25 2. Nonetheless, the court sua sponte dismisses this action as frivolous, without 26 prejudice, due to a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of 27 Civil Procedure 12(b)(1); and 28 ///// wOAOe UV OOM EAE VR PIR Ie AY Tt 1 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 2 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ° Dated: _ October 9, 2020 VL AL oye 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28