From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harris v. Shellpoint Debt Collecting Co.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 8, 2022
2:21-cv-01604-DAD-CKD (PS) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-01604-DAD-CKD (PS)

11-08-2022

ARTHUR HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. SHELLPOINT DEBT COLLECTING COMPANY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION

(DOC. NO. 3)

Plaintiff Arthur Harris, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil action on September 7, 2021. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On January 20, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's complaint and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed because: (1) plaintiff's claims against defendants Shellpoint Debt Collecting Company (“Shellpoint”) and New Rez LLC (“New Rez”) are barred by the doctrine of res judicata; and (2) plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against defendant Ditech Financial Mortgage Servicing Company (“Ditech”). (Doc. No. 3.) In particular, the magistrate judge concluded that in this action, “plaintiff attempts to brings claims that could have already been litigated” in the other two cases that plaintiff previously litigated in this district and that were dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim. (Id. at 3.) The magistrate judge also noted that although the complaints in the three actions are not identical, they all arise from the same nucleus of facts, and “[e]ach case is styled as bringing claims under ‘federal mortgage fraud laws' as well as the California Penal Code.” (Id. at 4.) Those pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 7.)

Rather than filing timely objections, on January 28, 2022, plaintiff appealed the magistrate judge's screening order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. No. 4.) On September 22, 2022, the Ninth Circuit dismissed plaintiff's appeal because that court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. (Doc. No. 9.) On October 24, 2022, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 10.)

This case was reassigned to the undersigned district judge on August 25, 2022. (Doc. No. 8.)

In his objections, plaintiff states that the findings and recommendations are “wrong” and “without merit” because, according to plaintiff, the claims he asserts in this action are “entirely different” from the claims asserted in his prior cases. (Doc. No. 10.) The undersigned is not persuaded by plaintiff's argument, however, because plaintiff continues on to describe his claims in this action as alleging violations of “his rights under California Penal Code section 532F and under Federal Mortgage Fraud Laws.” (Id. at 2.) As correctly noted by the magistrate judge in the pending findings and recommendations, those descriptions are how plaintiff had styled his claims presented in his prior two actions brought in this court as well. Thus, plaintiff's objections do not provide any basis upon which to conclude that his claims in this action are “entirely different” from the claims in his prior actions.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 20, 2022 (Doc. No. 3) are adopted in full;
2. This action is dismissed because plaintiff's claims against defendants Shellpoint and New Rez are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim against defendant Ditech; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Harris v. Shellpoint Debt Collecting Co.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 8, 2022
2:21-cv-01604-DAD-CKD (PS) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2022)
Case details for

Harris v. Shellpoint Debt Collecting Co.

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. SHELLPOINT DEBT COLLECTING COMPANY, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 8, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-01604-DAD-CKD (PS) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2022)