Bryant v. Wells Fargo Bank NA
2:17-cv-00430
D.S.C.Aug 14, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Joyce Ann Bryant sued Wells Fargo and its CEO alleging trespass, forgery, and seeking $9,820,000 related to a Dorchester County mortgage foreclosure.
- Plaintiff previously attempted to remove the same state foreclosure case to federal court twice; both removals were remanded for lack of jurisdiction.
- Complaint and attachments assert deficiencies in the state foreclosure (e.g., alleged forgery, lack of oath/open court, and demand for jury trial) but provide few coherent factual or legal allegations.
- The magistrate judge reviewed the filing for jurisdictional defects and frivolousness under the court’s inherent authority and Rule 8 pleading standards.
- Court found no cognizable basis for federal question or diversity jurisdiction, Rooker–Feldman and Younger doctrines potentially bar federal review, and the pleadings failed to state viable state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal-question jurisdiction | Asserts constitutional provisions and statutory citations (forgery, Bill of Rights) create federal jurisdiction | No federal statute or constitutional provision cited establishes jurisdiction over foreclosure dispute | No federal-question jurisdiction shown; citations insufficient |
| Diversity jurisdiction | Seeks damages > $75,000 | Defendants’ citizenship not pleaded; diversity not established | Diversity not adequately pleaded (complete diversity lacking) |
| Federal review of state-court foreclosure (Rooker–Feldman / Younger) | Seeks relief attacking state foreclosure proceedings (claims contending state process was defective) | Federal court lacks authority to review or interfere with state-court judgments or ongoing state proceedings | Rooker–Feldman bars federal appeal of state-court judgments; Younger abstention bars interference with ongoing state proceedings |
| Adequacy/merits of claims (fraud, trespass, forgery) | Alleges forgery, trespass, fraud; seeks criminal prosecution and damages | Allegations are conclusory, incoherent; do not meet state-law elements or Fed. R. Civ. P. 8/9(b) standards; private citizens cannot force criminal prosecution | Claims fail to state viable causes of action; dismissal recommended (with prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must contain enough factual matter to state a claim plausibly)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (established pleading standard for plausibility and factual allegations)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (federal courts lack authority to review final state-court judgments)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (Rooker–Feldman doctrine bars federal review of state court judgments)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (federal courts should abstain from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (clarified Rooker–Feldman and preclusion principles)
- Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (distinguishes legal vs. equitable actions for Seventh Amendment jury right)
- Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (private citizen has no judicially cognizable interest in criminal prosecution)
- Bell v. Twombly and related pleading cases were relied upon for dismissal standards and notice pleading requirements