Logan v. Shellpoint/Countrywide/Bank of America

          OPINION AND ORDER

          P. K. HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff proceeds in this matter pro se. Currently before the Court are Plaintiff's Motions for in forma pauperis status (ECF No's. 34, 45), Motion to Secure All Claims with a Small Brief to Support her Liability of Wrongdoing (ECF No. 51), Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 66), Motion to Increase the Amount of her Damage Request and for Default Judgment (ECF No. 67), Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and to Postpone the Case for Six Months (ECF No. 69), and Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 72).

         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 stated 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's Complaint is silent as to whether she proceeds against Defendants in their official or individual capacity. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in the amount of $250, 000. (Id. at 6).

         Plaintiff paid the filing fee when she filed her Complaint, but then filed a document interpreted by the Court to be a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 34). On November 13, 2019, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file a completed IFP application (ECF No. 43), which she did on November 18, 2019. (ECF No. 45).

         Except for Defendants Shellpoint, Countrywide, and Bank of America, all Defendants in the case have been dismissed with prejudice because Plaintiff either failed to state a claim against them or they were entitled to various immunities from suit. (ECF Nos's. 42, 47, 48, 49).

         On November 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Secure All Claims with a Small Brief to Support her Liability of Wrongdoing. (ECF No. 51). On November 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Recusal, asking that the undersigned be removed from the case because the prior dismissals indicated a lack of fairness and impartiality. (ECF No. 61). This was denied on December 5, 2019. In the Order denying the request, the Court thoroughly explained the deficiencies in Plaintiff's Complaint using language designed to aid a layperson in understanding the legal concepts involved. (ECF No. 65).

         On December 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider and a Motion to Increase the Amount of her Damage Request and for Default Judgment. (ECF No's. 66, 67). On December 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and to Postpone the Case for Six Months. (ECF No. 69). That same day, the Court entered an Order denying her Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 70). The Order informed Plaintiff that if she wished to amend her complaint to address the deficiencies identified in the Court's prior orders, she could request leave to do so. (Id.).

         On January 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend her Complaint. (ECF No. 72). Plaintiff did not attach a proposed Amended Complaint to her motion. Instead, she appears to include her amended claims in the Motion. Plaintiff alleges no facts in her motion. Instead, she lists various legal conclusions and legal phrases, and she asks that the case be permitted to proceed directly to trial. (ECF No. 72 at 2-3).

         Plaintiff attached a letter from Shellpoint dated November 14, 2019 to her motion, which states that her mortgage is seriously delinquent and advises her concerning the steps necessary to avoid foreclosure. (ECF No. 72-1). She also attached a letter from TD Auto Finance dated December 5, 2019 stating that her account had been sold. (ECF No. 72-2).^[1]

         II. ...