Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hatchett v. U.S. Bank

United States District Court, D. Oregon

July 16, 2014

CECIL JEROME HATCHETT, Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. BANK, RICHARD DAVIS, OCWEN FEDERAL LOAN, MULLINIAM GROUP LOAN, Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL MOSMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff pro se Cecil Jerome Hatchett, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed this action against defendants identified as U.S. Bank, Richard Davis, Ocwen Federal Loan, and Mulliniam Group Loan on May 30, 2014. The gravamen of Hatchett's complaint is unclear, but it appears likely that Hatchett intends to allege defendants' liability either in connection with Hatchett's allegedly unacknowledged compliance with his payment obligations under a mortgage he characterizes as an "illegal sham loan" or in connection with the unspecified role defendants may purportedly have played in causing Hatchett twice to have been purportedly falsely convicted and imprisoned by courts of the State of Oregon.[1] I have considered Hatchett's pleading and all of the papers on file. For the reasons set forth below, I dismiss Hatchett's action sua sponte for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Such dismissal is without prejudice, and Ilachett has this court's leave to refile his claim or claims in the event he believes he can cure the jurisdictional and other infirmities identified below.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In support of his prayer for relief, Hatchett alleges by and through his complaint as follows:

I Cecil Jerome Hatchett need a Civil Rights Attorney. Supervisory officials sued in their [i]ndividual capacities are answerable in a 1983 action where there is a causal connection [b]etween their own actions and the claimed civil rights violation, $16, 000, 000, 000 billion Dollars.
1. The illegal sham loan started with mulliniam loan group. This Black Man Cecil Jerome Hatchett just got of [sic] illegal imp[r]isonment cover-up.
2. Ocwen Federal Loan and U.S. Bank [are] tr[y]ing to cover-up a fraudulent payback by trying [to] act like Cecil J. Hatchett stopped paying. When Ocwen Loan illegally sent the payment back and then demanded three mo[]nt[h]s back Pay. Ocwen Federal loan and U.S. Bank trying to get a illegal summ[a]ry Judgment.[] All Cecil Jerome Hatchett's Federal Civil Rights, U.S. Constitution Amendment Rights must be added.

Complaint, 1-2. In addition, Hatchett includes as exhibits to his complaint copies of two "MoneyGram" transfers of funds from Hatchett to "Ocwen Loan Service" in the respective amounts of $1, 490.00 and $10.00, copies of Walmart receipts for the two MoneyGram transfers, a copy of a letter signed by Hatchett on April 20, 2012, and ostensibly sent to the Oregon Attorney General's office complaining that Hatchett had at that time been unable to reach an "Account Manager" at Ocwen to discuss Ocwen's apparent threat to foreclose on Hatchett's mortgage, and a copy of a letter signed by Hatchett on January 21, 2011, and ostensibly sent to the President and Attorney General of the United States and to the Governor of the State of Oregon complaining of "quiet white conspiracy hate crimes" which resulted in Hatchett's "experience[]" of "two illegal sham trials at Multnomah County Court-house" in connection with each of which Hatchett was convicted and sentenced to a period of incarceration. Complaint, Exhs. 1-4.

ANALYSIS

Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(h)(3) provides that "Ulf the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action, " Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); see also Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick, 505 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974) ("It has long been held that a judge can dismiss sera sponte for lack ofjurisdiction"). Moreover, in connection with in forma pctuperis actions such as this, the district courts are obliged to dismiss sua sponte actions failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted:

Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that
* * *
(B) the action..
(i) is frivolous or ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.