Bartlett v. Tribeca Lending Corp & Franklin Mortgage Asset Trust 2009-A

Background

On January 29, 2016, the court had barred Gregory M. Bartlett from filing a new civil action in that court concerning his 2007 state-court foreclosure proceeding unless he first obtained permission to file. Bartlett filed this action without a lawyer and requested both permission to file and in forma pauperis status, meaning permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Bartlett’s position

In his request for permission, Bartlett argued that the proposed case was different from his previous complaints. He said that his earlier claims involved alleged fraud on the court based on the defendants’ failure to comply with the notice requirement in Section 1303 of New York’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law. In this action, he argued that the same alleged failure meant he had not been properly served, so the state court lacked authority over the 2007 foreclosure case.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Bartlett’s request did not show that the proposed action was a departure from his previous frivolous litigation. It cited the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which generally prevents a federal district court from reviewing and rejecting a state-court judgment at the request of a person who lost in state court. The court characterized this action as a continuation of Bartlett’s filings concerning the 2007 foreclosure proceeding.

Ruling

The court denied Bartlett’s application for permission to file the complaint and his application for in forma pauperis status. It dismissed the action under the January 29, 2016 bar order. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.