Rance Strunk, Sr. v. Wells Fargo Bank NA
669 F. App'x 609
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Wells Fargo commenced a mortgage foreclosure in Chester County, PA; summary judgment for Wells Fargo was entered in 2013.
- The Strunks repeatedly sued Wells Fargo in state and federal court in 2011, 2013, and 2014 asserting mortgage-related claims; federal district court dismissed each removed case for failure to meet Rule 8 and, in later matters, on res judicata grounds.
- The Strunks appealed the 2013 and 2014 dismissals to this Court and those appeals were affirmed.
- In Feb 2016 the Strunks filed a document titled “Notice of Appeal” in federal court referencing the state foreclosure; the district court treated it as a new complaint, screened it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and dismissed it as barred by res judicata.
- The Strunks timely appealed the district court’s March 8, 2016 dismissal; they also sought various ancillary relief (financial relief, default judgment, appointment of counsel, judge recusal), all of which the court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Feb 2016 filing states a new federal claim not precluded by prior cases | Strunks contended the filing sought relief relating to their mortgage/foreclosure and could proceed as a new action | Wells Fargo (and district court) argued prior federal judgments and dismissals preclude relitigation under res judicata | Dismissal affirmed: claim barred by res judicata |
| Whether the filing should be treated as an appeal of the state-court foreclosure judgment | Strunks characterized the filing as an appeal of the CCP judgment | Respondent argued federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review state-court judgments (Rooker–Feldman) | Court held it was an impermissible attempt to attack state-court judgment and barred by Rooker–Feldman |
| Whether the filing could be construed as a Rule 60 motion for relief from prior federal judgments | Strunks sought relief from prior federal case outcomes (liberally construed) | Opposing position: no basis shown for Rule 60 relief | Court found no basis for Rule 60 relief and denied it |
| Whether the district court properly screened and dismissed sua sponte under § 1915(e)(2) on res judicata grounds | Strunks implied procedural or substantive errors in dismissal | Respondent contended dismissal on claim-preclusion was appropriate and permissible sua sponte | Court concluded sua sponte dismissal was proper and affirmed (res judicata is an appropriate basis) |
Key Cases Cited
- Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220 (3d Cir.) (standard of plenary review for screening dismissals)
- Mullarkey (In re Mullarkey), 536 F.3d 215 (3d Cir.) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been brought)
- Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246 (3d Cir.) (appellate affirmance may rest on any record-supported ground)
- Higgs v. Attorney General, 655 F.3d 333 (3d Cir.) (pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S.) (Rooker–Feldman bars federal review of state-court judgments)
- Duhaney v. Attorney General, 621 F.3d 340 (3d Cir.) (elements and application of claim preclusion)
- Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392 (U.S.) (sua sponte dismissals on affirmative defenses can be appropriate)