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.

Forrest v. Bank of America

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

January 4, 2018

MARQUITA FORREST, Plaintiff,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          David J. Hale, Judge

         Plaintiff Marquita Forrest, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint (Docket No. 1) and, pursuant to an Order of this Court, filed an amended complaint (DN 11). This matter is before the Court for screening of the complaint and amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). For the reasons that follow, the action will be dismissed.

         I.

         In the caption of the complaint form (DN 1), Plaintiff named Bank of America as Defendant, and in the parties' section of the form, she named three additional Defendants - Safeguard Properties; Attorney David Johnson, “debt collector”; and “Oldham Co. Circuit & District Clerk.” As a basis of this Court's jurisdiction, Plaintiff checked the “Federal question” box on the form and listed the following causes of action: “Civil rights, misrepresentation; reneging on loan, double billing, hardship & death, deceit, fraud aiding & abiding, indemnification paymen[t] breach of contract.” Although Plaintiff indicated that she was basing this Court's jurisdiction on the federal-question statute, she additionally completed the section of the form for jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. In the diversity-of-citizenship section, she indicated that she is a citizen of Kentucky (but as her address in the parties' section, she listed a post office box address in Indiana); that Bank of America is a citizen of Florida;[1] and that as the “amount in controversy, ” she seeks “4m cause suicide was end result of negligence of Eron Hinkle (36) 14303 Reamers Rd. Lou. Ky, 40242.” As Plaintiff's statement of claim, she wrote as follows:

Aug. 2014 allowed double billing out of escrow account, complainted to business & corp. a loan modification was allotted then in death they took it back & continued double billing then entered estate 4 mons after suicide. Feb 15' Safeguard is 3rd parties & David Johnson Atty pursued judgement in Oldham Co. Court Ky. October 7, 2016 Knowing these facts. Kentucky Consumer Act[.]

         In the complaint, Plaintiff sought the following relief: “4 million cause Eron Hinkle panic homeowner took his life because of mismanagement of Bank America til present. Also sued him knowing wrong dong renegeing on loan & double billing by insurance co, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary KCPAct.”[2]

         Before performing an initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court entered an Order (DN 10) providing Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint to clear up some matters in the complaint. Specifically, the Court indicated as follows:

If Plaintiff is alleging federal-question jurisdiction, she must clarify under what federal law or statute she is bringing this action. If Plaintiff is alleging diversity jurisdiction, she must clarify her citizenship. That is, she provides an address for a post office box in Indiana but indicates that she is a citizen of Kentucky. She also fails to indicate where she currently resides. Finally, it is unclear whether any of the allegations in the complaint are personal to or otherwise involve Plaintiff or, instead, whether they pertain to and involve only Mr. Hinkle, and she is attempting to sue on his estate's behalf.

         Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on a form (DN 11). Therein, in the caption she lists as Defendants Bank of America; “Oldham Co. Court”;[3] David Johnson, attorney; and Safeguard Properties. As her basis of jurisdiction, she checks the “Federal question” box on the form and lists the following as causes of action: “Ammendant - 4, KCP Act Civil Relief Act Dept of Justice v/s Bank of America.” In the amended complaint form, she neither checks the “Diversity of citizenship” box nor completes the section of the form pertaining to diversity jurisdiction, with the exception of providing an amount-in-controversy of “4 million railroaded into hardship ending in death of home owner, & wrongly evicting tenant w/o court action or chance for administor or foreclosure programs.” In the “Statement of Claim” section of the amended complaint form, Plaintiff indicates: “Bank of America Safeguard, David Johnson Knowing Knew I was a tenant of this property and ignored my pleas after railroaded death of homeowner Eron Hinkle & financeé.” In the amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks the following relief:

Writ to stay & emotional distress & loss of life 4 mil for mismanagement KCP Act renegeing on loan, double billing by incurance co. gross negligence, breach of fiduciary. Safeguard entered house removed items & destroyed property & tranferred electric, David Johnson represented Oldham Co. didn't allow in 1 mil ea. Asking.

         To her amended complaint, Plaintiff attaches numerous exhibits, including orders from an Oldham Circuit Court case, Bank of America, N.A. v. Eron Hinkle et al., Action No. 15-CI-00064. In an attached November 15, 2016, Oldham Circuit Court Order, the court indicated that it entered an order on October 11, 2016, titled “‘Final Judgment and Order of Sale' and Order Referring Case to Master Commissioner for Judicial Sale.” In the November 2016 order, the Oldham Circuit Court further indicated that “The Clerk has reported to the Court that she has received various filings from Marquita Forrest . . . . The Clerk has inquired of the court whether these should be filed since Ms. Forrest is not a Party to the action”; that “[t]he Court has examined each of the documents sent by Ms. Forrest to the Clerk and based upon the fact that Ms. Forrest is not a Party in the []action, the Court has advised the Clerk not to accept the papers for filing in this case”; that “Ms. Forrest additionally states . . . that she is currently a resident of the property, however, her mailing address is listed in New Albany, Indiana and she provided no proof of any lease or similar nature proving that she resides at the property in question”; and that “[n]one of these documents demonstrate to this Court that Ms. Forrest has any standing in this case. All of the documents appear to contest in some way the foreclosure proceeding moving forward. As a non-party to the action, Ms. Forrest cannot maintain actions and file motions to effect this case.”

         II.

         Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review the complaint and amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). On review, a district court must dismiss a case at any time if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The trial court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal ...


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.