Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Baker Botts L.L.P.

Background

Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo appeared without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. He sued approximately 30 defendants, generally attorneys, opposing parties, witnesses, and court personnel. His allegations concerned four groups of events: a 2010 case in New York Supreme Court, Westchester County; a 2014 case in the Southern District of New York; a 2021 case filed against him in Nassau County by former attorneys, followed by levies or garnishments in New Jersey; and debt-collection efforts in New Jersey in 2022.

He invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d), the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, diversity jurisdiction, and supplemental jurisdiction. He appeared to assert fraud on the court, due process violations, a claim under New York Judiciary Law § 487, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim. He sought orders vacating the earlier decisions, injunctions, levies, and garnishments, along with $50 million in damages. He also asked the court to issue summonses.

Court’s analysis

The court declined to issue summonses because it dismissed all claims. It explained that a court may dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, or fails to state a legally sufficient claim, even when the plaintiff paid the filing fee. A complaint must contain factual allegations that make relief plausible, not merely labels, conclusions, or a formulaic statement of legal elements. The court also applied the more flexible reading required for complaints filed without a lawyer, while noting that it could not invent facts that were not pleaded.

Rule 60(d) and the 2010 and 2014 cases. Rule 60(d) allows an independent action to seek relief from a federal judgment or to set aside a federal judgment for fraud on the court; it does not authorize this court to review a state-court decision. The court therefore dismissed the fraud-on-the-court claims concerning the 2010 state-court proceedings. It also dismissed the fraud-on-the-court claim concerning the 2014 federal case because Kamdem-Ouaffo did not allege the clear and convincing evidence of serious fraud needed for this rare form of relief. The allegation that attorneys knew facts undermining their position was conclusory, and arguing that the 2010 case was barred by an earlier judgment did not establish fraud in obtaining that judgment.

The court also dismissed the claims arising from the 2014 federal case because Kamdem-Ouaffo did not show a due process violation. The court stated that due process generally applies to government conduct, not private parties. It found that the defendants he wanted to sue were not state actors for purposes of that claim, except for Armando Fontoura, an Essex County Sheriff, who had no connection to the 2014 federal litigation.

Due process. Separately, the court dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. Private parties cannot be sued for violating due process, and all but one of the state actors identified by Kamdem-Ouaffo were judges or court personnel whom the court said were immune from suit. As to Fontoura, Kamdem-Ouaffo did not provide facts plausibly alleging that Fontoura denied him due process.

Debt collection and state-law claims. The court dismissed the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim because Kamdem-Ouaffo did not plausibly allege that the defendants met the statutory definition of debt collector. It also held that New York was not a proper venue for events occurring in Nassau County and New Jersey. For the same reason, venue was improper for state-law claims based on the collection efforts.

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—in the absence of another adequate basis for federal jurisdiction. The court could have considered the state-law claims if complete diversity of citizenship existed, but Kamdem-Ouaffo did not provide the domicile of several defendants and gave only office addresses, so the court could not determine that diversity jurisdiction existed.

Regarding the 2010 state-court case, the court stated that any request to vacate the state-court decision would be barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which generally prevents a federal district court from reviewing a state-court judgment. It further stated that the allegations did not adequately support damages claims under Judiciary Law § 487 or for fraud, conspiracy, or breach of fiduciary duty. The court noted that the allegations did not plausibly show that the lawyers knew a disputed fact was false, how the alleged inconsistency affected the 2010 litigation, that a conspiracy existed, or that a defendant owed and breached a fiduciary duty.

Disposition

Judge Seibel concluded that the complaint was dismissed, with leave to replead within 30 days. The court directed that an amended complaint must explain what each defendant individually did in connection with each claim. The order states that if an amended complaint was not filed by July 5, 2023, the case would be dismissed without further notice.