United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
GLICENIA C. LOGAN PLAINTIFF
v.
SGT. CHRIS WATERS Arkansas State Police; SHELLPOINT/CONTRYWIDE/BANK OF AMERICA Trustee/Home Loan Serv/Banking and Loans; SENIOR CORPORAL MICHAEL SPRINGER Supervisor/Investigating Officer; JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN/NATASHA GRAF Standing/Case Worker Trustee; CHIEF JUDGE BEN T. BARRY United States Bankruptcy Court; JOHN MICHAEL RAINWATER/BRIAN LIGHT Lawyers/Attorney; ALLISON HOUSTON State Prosecutor's Office/Fort Smith Prosecutor's Office; JUDGE FITZHUGH Judge District Court of Greenwood; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE; MR. COOPER MORTHAGE Mr. Cooper Mortgage Company; DANA BYRUM District IV manager for Stat[e of Arkansas; NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORP.; FARM CREDIT SERVICES OF WESTERN ARKANSAS Andrea Leding Regional Vice President and LATISHA MEADOWS DHS Administrative Review Officer DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
P. K.
HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff
proceeds in this matter pro se. Currently before the
Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by
Defendant Farm Credit Services of Western Arkansas
(“Farm Credit”). (ECF No's 16, 17).
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
filed her Complaint on September 1, 2019. (ECF No. 1). Her
sparse allegations appear to reference the condemnation of an
unidentified parcel of real property. (Id. at 5-6).
The entirety of her claim is as follows:
“I Purchase the property in 2003 with my spouse, in
2004 I Started a Daycare to able to profit and make a
Different, 2005-2006 Started Working on the building on the
road to the daycare, got my daycare Address Register at 4513
Park Road next to my house, I send $500 to Bank of America in
2008 also I Survey the one Acre for the daycare Started my
Garden and Rabbits farm to allowed the kids to eat healthy
and allowed to to learn about the animal, they health, etc I
pay about $75, 000 within 10 years with all my work and
Investment I have spend roughtlyabout $98, 000
Due to lack of accountability of Shellpoint, attorney
Countrywide, Bank of America, Brian Light, the judge and
Court not listening to me know Fema Condemn the house till I
fix it up know I have more than a sick spouse to think about
his health but to put a roof over his head[.]”
(Id. at 5) (errors in original). Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages in the amount of $250, 000. (Id. at
6).
Farm
Credit filed its Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on October 14, 2019. (ECF
No's 16, 17). Plaintiff filed her Response on October 23,
2019. (ECF No. 28). Farm Credit has not submitted a Reply.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires only that a complaint
present “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “In order to meet this standard,
and survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), ‘a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations
omitted)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft, 556
U.S. at 678. A pro se plaintiff's complaint is liberally
construed, but it must still allege sufficient facts to
support the plaintiff's claims. See Stone v.
Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004). Merely listing
a defendant in a case caption is insufficient to support a
claim against the defendant. Krych v. Hass, 83
Fed.Appx. 854, 855 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing Potter v.
Clark, 497 F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir. 1974) (per
curiam) (noting that court properly dismissed pro se
complaint that was silent as to defendant except for his name
appearing in caption)).
III.
ANALYSIS
Farm
Credit argues Plaintiff's allegations fail to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted because Plaintiff
fails to mention them or any alleged wrongdoing by them in
her allegations. (ECF No. 16 at 1). Farm Credit is correct.
Plaintiff has not alleged any facts concerning Farm Credit in
the body of her Complaint. Instead, she merely listed Farm
Credit as a Defendant in the caption of the case. Because
Plaintiff's Complaint does not allege specific facts
showing anything Defendant Farm Credit did, or failed to do,
that would give Plaintiff some right to relief against them,
her claims against Farm Credit must be
dismissed.[1]
Similarly,
Plaintiff listed Farm Credit in the caption of her Response
but failed to mention them or any alleged wrongdoing by them
in the body of her Response. Further, Plaintiff's
Response is comprised of an apparently random listing of
fragmented legal terminology and phrases such as “Cause
of property loss by unlawful means by interfering with
freedom of a third party, ” “Tortuous
interference with emotional harm . . ., ” and
“Frauds, Deceitful Act, Race, Gender Bias, Ethnicity,
Marriage Status, Biasness, Lack of cooperation, Communication
and Prejudice.” (ECF No. 28 at 2). As was the case with
her Complaint, her Response fails to set forth a single
factual allegation describing what either of these Defendants
did, or failed to do, which violated her constitutional
rights. As such, she again fails to state a cognizable claim
for relief, and her claims against Farm Credit must be
dismissed. See Christiansen v. West Branch Community
School Dist., 674 F.3d 927, 934 (8th Cir. 2012) (noting
that “a gallimaufry of labels, conclusions, formulaic
recitations, naked assertions and the like” fail to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted).
IV.
...