Green v. Chamberlain Home Owners Association

Background

Carl Green filed the action as an assignee of Kathlyn Gray. The complaint alleged that Chamberlain Home Owners Association deprived Gray of her home, referred to as the “Property,” without due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The opinion notes that the caption says “Kathlyn,” while the complaint says “Kathleen.”

The Association moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. It also moved for sanctions under Rule 11 and asked the court to declare Green a vexatious litigant. The magistrate judge recommended granting the dismissal motion and granting the sanctions motion in part by requiring Green to obtain court permission before filing additional property-related actions against the Association, its board members, its property managers, and its legal counsel in the District of Minnesota. Green objected to those recommendations.

Due-Process Claim

The court conducted a fresh review of the challenged recommendations. It explained that a Fifth Amendment due-process claim requires an allegation that the federal government or federal action deprived a person of property. A claim based on private conduct also requires a sufficiently close connection to government action so that the private conduct can fairly be treated as government action.

The court held that Green had not alleged either federal action or a sufficiently close connection to federal action. The complaint alleged only that the Association brought a foreclosure action in state court and obtained a default judgment concerning the Property. The court therefore overruled Green’s objection, adopted the recommendation to grant the Association’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the action without prejudice.

Sanctions and Filing Restriction

The court found that the magistrate judge’s sanctions findings were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. It noted that Green had brought multiple actions concerning the foreclosure—individually, on behalf of his limited liability company, and as an assignee—and had continued litigating the matter after prior unsuccessful actions.

The court held that requiring Green to obtain court permission before filing further actions related to the Property in the District of Minnesota against the Association, its board members, its property managers, and its legal counsel was a reasonable restriction. It therefore overruled Green’s objection and adopted the recommendation to grant the Association’s sanctions motion in part.

Order

The order: (1) overruled Green’s objection; (2) adopted the November 12, 2020 Report and Recommendation; (3) dismissed the complaint without prejudice; and (4) referred Green’s request to amend the complaint under Rule 15(a)(2) to the magistrate judge for consideration. The order also directed the clerk not to file or respond to future submissions from “Defendant,” except as directed by the court.