Opinion
C. A. 3:22-1750-SAL-SVH
12-12-2022
Johnny Mack Hawkins, Authorized Representative of Willie Mack Hawkins, Plaintiff, v. Bayview Loan Servicing LLC and Citifinancial Servicing, Inc., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMEDNATION
Shiva V. Hodges, United States Magistrate Judge.
Johnny Mack Hawkins, “Authorized Representative of Willie Mack Hawkins” (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action against Defendants. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), this matter has been assigned to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends this matter be dismissed.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff alleges that Willie Mack Hawkins (“Willie”) passed away of natural causes on December 18, 2013. [ECF No. 1 at 4]. The complaint alleges property located at 2320 Lorick Avenue, Columbia, South Carolina (“Property”), was unlawfully foreclosed upon on January 26, 2018. Id. at 5. He further alleges a supplemental judgment of foreclosure was entered on November 18, 2019, in order to evict the occupants of the Property. Id.
On June 8, 2022, the undersigned issued an order directing Plaintiff to answer special interrogatories as to whether he was the sole beneficiary of Willie Mack Hawkins. Instead of answering the interrogatories, Plaintiff attached probate documents, which appear to show Gladys Hawkins as the sole beneficiary of Willie Mack Hawkins' estate. However, Plaintiff alleges Gladys Hawkins passed away in 2016, so the court has no information as to the ultimate beneficiaries related to the Property.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se complaint. Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), and a federal district court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case, Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)).
Moreover, even when the filing fee is paid, the court possesses the inherent authority to ensure that a plaintiff has standing, that federal jurisdiction exists, and that a case is not frivolous. See Ross v. Baron, 493 Fed.Appx. 405, 406 (4th Cir. 2012); Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 480 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting courts have “independent obligation to assess . . . subject-matter jurisdiction”).
Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis. Therefore, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which allows sua sponte dismissal of complaints that fail to state a claim, is inapplicable.
B. Analysis
While individuals may represent themselves pro se in federal court, a person may not ordinarily appear pro se in the cause of another person or entity. See Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 F.3d 391, 392-93 (2d Cir 1997) (finding that a pro se litigant may not represent a corporation, estate, or partnership); Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (“[W]e consider the competence of a layman representing himself to be clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others.”). One exception to the rule prohibiting pro se representation of another is when a pro se person, who is the executor of an estate, represents the estate and the estate has no creditors or other beneficiaries. See Witherspoon v. Jeffords Agency, Inc., 88 F. App'x. 659 (4th Cir. 2004) (unpublished) (remanding the matter for further proceedings to ascertain whether there were any creditors involved); Malone v. Nielson, 474 F.3d 934, 937 (7th Cir. 2007) (finding that where an administrator of an estate is not the sole beneficiary or where the estate has creditors, then the administrator may not represent the estate pro se in federal court).
The complaint indicates “On January 16, 2014, [Johnny] was named
Successor Executor in the Last Will and Testament of [Willie's] estate executed by Willie [] executed May 29, 1997, as firstborn Michael Caruso Hawkins died on August 23, 2000.” [ECF No. 1 at 4]. After special interrogatories, the court still does not have information sufficient to ansure that Plaintiff may proceed pro se. Therefore, the undersigned recommends this matter be dismissed without prejudice.
The court notes that this case also appears to be barred by the statute of limitations. In addition, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this court may not review findings or rulings made by state courts. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983) (holding that a federal district court lacks authority to review final determinations of state or local courts); Jordahl v. Democratic Party, 122 F.3d 192, 199 (4th Cir. 1997). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine extends not only to issues actually decided by a state court, but also to those that are “inextricably intertwined with questions ruled upon by a state court.” Plyler v. Moore, 129 F.3d 728, 731 (4th Cir. 1997).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections 5to Report and Recommendation.”
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).