Opinion
1:22-cv-00030-CL
06-08-2022
JAMES D. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. JAMES K. HEIN, TRANSITION PROJECTS, INC., HOME FORWARD OF MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
MARK D. CLARKE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff James D. Smith, a self-represented litigant, brought this action against Defendants James K. Hein, Transition Projects, Inc., and Home Forward of Multnomah County for alleged violations of Plaintiffs civil rights, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Fair House Act. This case comes before the Court on separate motions to dismiss filed by the defendants. Plaintiff has also moved the Court for appointment of pro bono counsel for the limited purpose of assisting him with a mediation session between himself and the defendants. Plaintiff also filed a motion to transfer venue to the Portland Division of this Court. After careful consideration of all the motions filed in this case, the Court recommends that Plaintiffs motions be DENIED and Defendants' motions to dismiss be GRANTED. Amendment of the Complaint would be futile.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff identifies as a homeless, disabled veteran who allegedly sought services from defendants. Defendant Transition Projects Inc. (“TPI”) is an Oregon non-profit corporation that offers housing assistance and homeless prevention services in the greater Portland metro area. Defendant James Hein (“Hein”) is an attorney licensed in Oregon and serves as a board member for TPI. Defendant Home Forward is an Oregon non-profit corporation that provides housing assistance within Multnomah County, Oregon.
Plaintiff s claims against defendants appear to arise out of a state court case in the Multnomah County Circuit Court, Case No 20cv04603 (the “State Court Action”). In the State Court Action, Plaintiff alleged deficiencies in the housing provided to him, failure to accommodate disabilities, and various violations of the Fair Housing Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, and Plaintiffs Seventh Amendment rights. See Exhibit 1 to Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. #22-1). Plaintiff alleges the same violations in his federal complaint and adds that defendants were involved in a conspiracy to retaliate against him for filing a complaint, obstruction of justice, and illegally altering a settlement agreement associated with mediation.
Plaintiff has submitted exhibits to this Court that are referenced in his Complaint. Defendant Home Forward has asked this Court to take judicial notice of those same exhibits. Plaintiff identifies Exhibit 1 as “the plaintiffs version of the settlement agreement between he and Samantha Sondag of Stoel Rives, which plaintiff initialed on or about September 09,2020.”
2 - Findings and Recommendation Plaintiff s Exhibit 1 (Dkt. No. 24 at 23). The attached exhibit is titled as a Limited Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice with the case caption from the State Court Action. The document reads,
Pursuant to the stipulation and agreement of Plaintiff James D. Smith (“Plaintiff') and Defendant Home Forward of Multnomah County (“Defendant”), and the Court being fully advised herein and haying so ordered, that all claims by and between these parties only are fully resolved, and settled,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that . all claims be and between Plaintiff and Defendant are dismissed with prejudice and without an award of costs or attorneys' fees to either party.
Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 (Dkt. No. 24 at 24-25). The document then leaves a line for the judge to sign. Plaintiffs Exhibit 2 is identified by Plaintiff as “the court order prepared by Samantha Sondag, and altered by person Or persons unknown to plaintiff.” Plaintiffs Exhibit 2 (Dkt. No. 24 at 28). The attached exhibit is the signed version of Exhibit 1, signed by Circuit Court Judge Stephen Bushong and dated October 19, 2020. The title of the judgment was changed to read General Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice with the word “limited” crossed out and “general” written above it. The body of the document is otherwise unchanged. Plaintiff states that he received a copy of the signed judgment “from an unknown source, who offered no explanation.” Id.
Plaintiff clarifies in his Response Brief that the “judgment” referred to by defendants “is not a valid judgement, a determination made on the merits of the case, or a final judgment in the case, and plaintiff is appealing this use of a Motion for a Limited Dismissal, which was illegally altered into a rubber stamp court order drafted by defense counsel Samantha Sondag, but which was never served to plaintiff after it was altered and filed with the Multnomah Circuit Court Clerk's office, thus making it invalid.” Response at 8 (Dkt. No. 24). Plaintiff also clarifies that his “new legal claims” against defense counsel and Home Forward are from “when this new violation of federal law and federally protected constitutional rights allegedly took place, in September and October of 2020.” Id.
Plaintiff asserts that he had engaged in successful mediation with the defendants of his State Court Action, including the defendants named in this case, but that the subsequent actions of the defendants named in this case and their counsels “have created new legal claims against them, including conspiracy and prejudicial violations of constitutional and civil rights, after the date of settlement agreement between plaintiff and defendant Home Forward, which is listed as 9/29/2020.” Response at 4 (Dkt. #24). Plaintiff then directs the Court to view his Complaint, pages 28-35, paragraphs 50-55, “for more information about this new legal claim, alleging conspiracy and obstruction of justice, along with violations of federal statutes 42 USC 1985 and 1986.” Id. Paragraphs 50-55 of Plaintiff's Complaint consists of conclusory allegations that defendants have obstructed justice and intimidated Plaintiff and his potential witnesses; deprived Plaintiff of his rights and privileges and conspired to injure him; acted negligently in resolving Plaintiff's complaints against them by denying his request for homeless services from them; and acted with criminal negligence by not reporting the illegally altered judgment.
Plaintiff filed an appeal against defendants to the Oregon Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. See Smith v. Hein, 314 Ore. App. 123 (Aug. 18,2021). Plaintiff subsequently petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court and the court denied review. See Smith v. Hein, 368 Ore. 787 (Nov. 24, 2021). Defendants assert that Plaintiff also filed a BOLI complaint against TPI alleging unlawful housing practices in violation of ORS 659A, and BOLI dismissed that complaint. Plaintiff also filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Circuit Court Judge Stephen Bushong and a bar complaint against Defendant Hein. Defendant Hein asserts that the Oregon State Bar declined to investigate the bar complaint made against him.
DISCUSSION
I. Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by claim preclusion and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Defendants move to dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient facts that “state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). A claim is plausible on its face when the factual allegations allow the court to infer the defendant's liability based on the alleged conduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663. The factual allegations must present more than “the mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 678.
In evaluating a motion to dismiss, the court must accept all allegations of material fact as true and construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541, 545 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). However, the court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than pleadings by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972). That is, the court should construe pleadings by pro se plaintiffs liberally and afford the plaintiffs the benefits of any doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and the opportunity to amend, unless the complaint's deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Id.
In this case, the complaint's deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment because Plaintiffs claims are barred under the doctrines of claim preclusion and Rooker-Feldman. In Oregon, claim preclusion ‘applies when there is (1) an identity of claims; (2) a final judgment on the merits; and (3) identity or privity between the parties.' Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002)). Claim and issue preclusion prevent “parties from contesting matters that they have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate,” and serve to “protect against ‘the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserv[e] judicial resources, and foste[r] reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.” Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153-54, 99 S.Ct. 953, 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979). Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction “when the federal plaintiff both asserts as her injury legal error or errors by the state court and seeks as her remedy relief from the state court judgment.” Kongasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136,1140 (9th Cir. 2004); Cooper, 704 F.3d at 777-78. See also Meek v. Zopan, 2017 WL 902864, at *3 (D. Or. Mar. 6, 2017). In other words, if a plaintiff is dissatisfied with the outcome of a case in state court, he,, may not attempt to overturn that outcome by challenging that case in federal court.
Plaintiff has made clear in his Complaint and subsequent filings that he is pursuing this action in federal court because he thinks the judgment entered in his State Court Action is not a “valid judgment.” The “new claims” raised by Plaintiff seem to relate directly to the alleged altering of the judgment. Plaintiff asks this Court to determine whether the altering of the state court judgment from a limited judgment of dismissal to a general judgment of dismissal was lawful. The Court does not have jurisdiction to make that determination. The federal court is not an appellate court for actions litigated within the state court system. The federal court does not have the ability to set aside the judgments entered in the State Court Action to allow Plaintiff to pursue legal claims against parties that he already pursued legal claims against. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the State Court Action and the Oregon Supreme Court denied review. Therefore, Plaintiff is precluded from attempting to relitigate the matter in federal court.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated above, defendants' motions to dismiss (Dkt. #18 and #20) should be GRANTED. Amendment would not cure the deficiencies in Plaintiffs Complaint. Therefore, the Court does not recommend giving Plaintiff leave to amend. Plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel (#16) and motion to transfer venue (#25) should be DENIED. Judgment should be entered in favor of defendants.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment or appealable order. The Report and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, are due fourteen (14) days from today's date. If objections are filed, any response to the objections is due fourteen (14) days from the date of the objections. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, 6.