Opinion
3:23-cv-88-KRG-KAP
05-19-2023
STACEY-LYNN; BRATTON, Plaintiff v. FREDRIC JOSEPH AMMERMAN, et al., Defendants
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Keith A. Pesto, United States Magistrate Judge
Recommendation
This matter should be dismissed with leave to amend, as explained below.
Report
Plaintiff spells her name Stacey-Lynn; Bratton, Stacey-Lynn; .Bratton, and Stacey-Lynn: Bratton. She alleges that she was improperly sued as Stacey L. Bratton and Stacey Lynn Bratton in two civil actions in the Clearfield County Court of Common Pleas, one captioned First Commonwealth Bank v. Stacey L. Bratton, Case No. 2022-892-CD, and another captioned First Commonwealth Bank v. Stacey Lynn Bratton, Case No. 2022-1226-CD. Those cases are or have been presided over by President Judge Fredric Ammerman. Plaintiff, acting pro se, has submitted what she titled “Fraud Forgery Petition for Writ of Mandamus Quo Warranto Emergent Request TRO, Preliminary Injunction Pending Trial Redress of Grievances Violation of Civil Rights 42 U.S.C.§ 1343.” It has been docketed as a complaint and request for preliminary injunctive relief.
Plaintiff alleges the existence of a conspiracy between Judge Ammerman, the county Sheriff or sheriff's deputies who serve process in Clearfield County, the county Prothonotary, the county Recorder of Deeds, and First Commonwealth Bank to improperly foreclose on real property owned by her or formerly owned by her but placed in a trust (the “Bratton familia God Trust”) that she implies is beyond the reach of a foreclosure action. Plaintiff requests an order staying the foreclosure of real estate and millions of dollars in money damages from the public officials, the bank, and the bank's employees. Jurisdiction is allegedly based on 28 U.S.C.§ 1343.
The problem initially is that plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or moved to proceed in forma pauperis. She physically handed the Clerk a Liberty Silver Eagle One Dollar coin, with a note in her paperwork (“Please accept this 1 oz silver coin as payment for debt. Thank you!”) that implies the coin will pay the filing fee. In her complaint she includes correspondence suggesting that she has unsuccessfully attempted to discharge alleged debts this way. Although the melt value of a one ounce silver coin is greater than $1, and even though the most casual internet search indicates that various entities offer to sell Silver Eagles for more than $1, the Clerk is not a bank, a jeweler, or interested in investing in bullion. A $1 coin is worth $1 toward the filing fee. The Court can simply administratively close this case until the filing fee has been paid or a valid motion to proceed in forma pauperis is filed.
But if the plaintiff takes steps to discharge the filing fee obligation, she would be wasting her time doing if she does not amend her complaint. The collection of paperwork submitted does not even attempt to be a “short plain statement” of facts, not legal catchphrases, “showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Just as indispensably, Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1) requires a short plain statement of the factual basis for believing that this or any federal court has jurisdiction over the claims against defendants. Conclusory claims that a defendant is violating her civil rights do not adequately invoke the jurisdiction of this court either under its general federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.§ 1331, or its civil rights jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.§ 1343. Despite more than 100 pages of complaint and exhibits, plaintiff has not stated facts evidencing any conspiracy, or any facts alleging the deprivation of any civil right by any person acting under color of law. Private parties do not by pursuing legal claims in court conspire with the judge presiding over those claims, and despite numerous “I feels” about Judge Ammerman's alleged bias in favor of the bank, plaintiff offers nothing more than that. It is superfluous to discuss the inadequacy of any claim for relief under Rule 65 when plaintiff has not submitted an adequate complaint under Rule 8.
Abstention is not a problem: the pendency of a state court civil action would not prevent this court from exercising jurisdiction over a claim that the action resulted from a conspiracy to deprive her of her civil rights. The problem is that plaintiff's complaint is rife with nonsensical home-remedy defenses (e.g., defendants were obliged to accept plaintiff's silver dollars for more than face value in discharge of her debts) and challenges to the jurisdiction of any court that might rule against her, including a purported quo warranto action seeking to establish that Judge Ammerman's oath of office is invalid (plaintiff has no private right of action to bring a quo warranto complaint in this court) or that Clearfield County is not properly incorporated under state law (a matter that on its face violates no federal right of the plaintiff). Plaintiff also appears to believe she has the power to stop litigation in the Court of Common Pleas by withholding her consent to the jurisdiction of that court (she does not), and that by changing her name from the similar one she used previously she has become a different legal entity, immune from process (she has not). Condemnation should be reserved for the malicious peddlers of this sort of kit, but even if plaintiff has been convinced her arguments are valid, they are not. She can amend her complaint. She can also consult federal bankruptcy law which may afford plaintiff some relief.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1), the parties can within fourteen days file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. In the absence of timely and specific objections, any appeal would be severely hampered or entirely defaulted. See EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error).