Levine v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

Background

Adam Levine proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. He filed an action arising from a foreclosure proceeding in New York State Court in Putnam County. His original complaint challenged the state court’s authority to conduct the foreclosure and alleged that state-court judges and clerks violated his constitutional rights. It also alleged that private defendants committed fraud, acted in bad faith, and violated the Consumer Credit Protection Act. Levine sought damages and injunctive relief.

Judge Stanton dismissed the original complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii), which require dismissal of a fee-free complaint that fails to state a claim or seeks money from defendants who are immune from such relief. The earlier order also granted Levine time to amend. Levine filed an amended complaint on October 9, 2018, naming the same defendants. He alleged violations of due process and equal protection and asserted state-law claims including negligence, fraud, and alleged unlawful seizure and manipulation of public land records. He referred to the Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and other authorities, and again sought damages and injunctive relief.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the amended complaint under the standards governing fee-free complaints and the requirement that a pleading provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible. The court stated that the amended complaint was dismissed for the same reasons given in the earlier dismissal order, which had found that the original complaint failed to state a claim and sought relief from immune defendants.

The court concluded that the amended complaint added no facts supporting a claim under § 1983 or any other federal law. The opinion also refers to the earlier order’s conclusions that the Eleventh Amendment barred claims against New York State, judicial employees were immune from suit, claims against private actors lacked allegations that they acted under color of state law, and the pleading failed to state claims under the Truth in Lending Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Because the federal claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Levine might be asserting. The court also declined to allow another amendment because Levine had already been given an opportunity to amend and the amended complaint gave no indication that its defects could be cured.

The court noted that Levine had pursued related challenges to the foreclosure in prior related proceedings, identified by docket numbers 17-CV-389 and 17-CV-2321 in the Southern District of New York. The court stated that any remedy for an injury arising from the foreclosure proceedings should be pursued by appealing adverse decisions within the state court system rather than seeking federal-court intervention in the foreclosure action.

Disposition

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk to mail the order to Levine and record service on the docket. The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii), closed the matter, and stated that no further documents would be accepted except documents captioned for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.