Green v. Chamberlain Home Owners Association
- John Tunheim
- 0:20-cv-00798
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
Green v. Chamberlain Home Owners Association: Judge Tunheim dismissed the due-process case without prejudice and restricted future related filings.
Carl Green’s lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice. The order also limited his ability to file future property-related actions in the District of Minnesota against the association and specified related parties, while referring his request to amend to the Magistrate Judge.
What happened
In Green v. Chamberlain Home Owners Association, Carl Green claimed that the association deprived Kathleen Gray of her home without due process under the Fifth Amendment.
The association argued that the complaint should be dismissed because it was not a federal actor. It also sought sanctions based on Green’s repeated lawsuits concerning the property and asked for limits on future filings.
Judge John R. Tunheim overruled Green’s objection, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, granted the sanctions motion in part by adopting a filing restriction, and referred Green’s request to amend to the Magistrate Judge.
The detailed version
- Green v. Chamberlain Home Owners Association · No. 0:20-cv-00798
- John Tunheim
- Feb. 10, 2021
Background
Carl Green, identified as the assignee of Kathlyn Gray in the caption, sued Chamberlain Home Owners Association. The complaint alleged that the association deprived Gray of her home, called 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 further property-related actions in the District of Minnesota against the association and specified related people and entities. Green objected.
Fifth Amendment claim
The court explained that a Fifth Amendment due-process claim requires federal government action, or a private action sufficiently connected to the federal government to be treated as federal action. After reviewing the matter independently, the court found that Green alleged only that the association brought a foreclosure action in state court and obtained a default judgment concerning the Property. The court found no alleged federal action or sufficiently close connection to federal action.
The court therefore overruled Green’s objection and adopted the Report and Recommendation as to the dismissal motion. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice.
Sanctions and filing restriction
The court found that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations on sanctions were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court noted that Green had brought multiple actions concerning the foreclosure—individually, on behalf of his limited liability company, and as an assignee—and had already had opportunities to raise issues concerning the foreclosure.
The court adopted the recommendation to grant the sanctions motion in part. It approved a restriction requiring Green to obtain leave of court before filing further actions related to the Property in the District of Minnesota against Chamberlain Home Owners Association, its board members, its property managers, and its legal counsel. The order also directed the Clerk of Court not to file or respond to future submissions from Green except as directed by the court.
Order
The court overruled Green’s objection and adopted the November 12, 2020 Report and Recommendation. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice and referred Green’s request to amend the complaint under Rule 15(a)(2) to the Magistrate Judge for consideration. The opinion does not state how that request was ultimately resolved.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.