Sheeler (PS) v. U.S. Bank
1:25-cv-00203
D. Colo.Apr 22, 2025Background
- Carl Lloyd Sheeler, proceeding pro se, filed suit in federal court seeking to stop or reverse the foreclosure of his residential property in Durango, Colorado.
- Sheeler asserted that he received a COVID-19 mortgage forbearance under RESPA/CARES Act, and claimed the foreclosure was in violation of federal law (12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(g), prohibiting 'dual tracking').
- He brought six claims, including violations of RESPA and FDCPA, unjust enrichment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful foreclosure, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
- The property was already sold at a public auction, allegedly taken by defendant Eric Palmer, suggesting state foreclosure proceedings had concluded.
- Sheeler sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, including over $2,000,000 in damages and an order barring further foreclosure.
- The case was referred to a U.S. Magistrate Judge for recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal jurisdiction to review state foreclosure | Federal court should stop/reverse foreclosure; relief needed | Federal court cannot review state foreclosure | Court lacks jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman; must dismiss |
| Injunctive relief staying state action | Injunction necessary to halt foreclosure | Federal law bars such injunctions | Anti-Injunction Act prohibits relief sought |
| Abstention due to ongoing state proceedings | Federal intervention is appropriate despite state action | Principles of abstention require hands-off | Younger abstention applies if state proceedings ongoing |
| Opportunity to raise federal claims in state court | State forum inadequate to address federal questions | State courts can address relevant federal issues | No showing of extraordinary circumstances; state adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (federal courts cannot review state court judgments)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (reiterates bar on federal review of state court decisions)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (clarifies scope of Rooker-Feldman doctrine)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (federal abstention in ongoing state proceedings)
- BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531 (protects state interests in real property title stability)