Opinion
Case No. 1:22-cv-10654
2022-05-31
Aaron MEDDAUGH, Plaintiff, v. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICE, Defendant.
Aaron Meddaugh, Charlevoix, MI, Pro Se.
Aaron Meddaugh, Charlevoix, MI, Pro Se.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, United States District Judge
Plaintiff filed a Complaint, which this Court dismissed on the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Plaintiff then filed motion for relief and motion for leave to amend. Both Motions will be denied.
I.
Plaintiff Aaron Meddaugh brings this action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 – 1692p, alleging that Defendant is garnishing his wages to collect a debt that he does not owe. ECF No. 1 at PageID.4–5. Plaintiff's pro se Complaint states:
For a discussion of the purposes of the FDCPA, see Elwin Griffith, The Search for Better Communication Between the Debt Collector and the Consumer Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act , 61 U. Kan. L. Rev. 179, 179–82 (2012). For an examination of the FDCPA's history, see generally Logan Kraus, Note, A Forgotten Past Creates A Fractured Present: Why Courts Should Utilize Historical Context When Interpreting Ambiguous Provisions of the 1977 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act , 102 Iowa L. Rev. 1789 (2017).
Plaintiff was served with a alleged debt default that he never received service for that was sent to Midland county, Plaintiffs former residence. Plaintiff found out about the defaut judgment that was entered in 2010, Defendant filed for garnishment on the alleged debt around fall 2021. Plaintiff was told by his job that his wages would be garnished around January. Plaintiff is not aware of the alleged debt are ever received notice and denies owing Defendant. Defendant filed for garnsigment of the alleged debt that a default was entered for an alleged expired judgement of 2010 that was refiled in 2021.
....
Plaintiff seeks $75,000 in damages actual and puntitive damages for Defendant violating the FDCPA by collecting on a expired judgment for an allege debt, the violation has caused Plaintiff intentional infliction of distress, Plaintiff is very mad, depressed, and very upset, as the garnishment has cause financial hardship to Plaintiffs ability to pay his bills.
Id. at PageID.5–6.
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia Morris, ECF No. 5, who issued an R&R recommending that this Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 8. The R&R states that, even construed liberally due to Plaintiff's pro se status, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief under the FDCPA. ECF No. 8 at PageID.20.
Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff's objection states in full:
Meddaugh objects to any and all parts of the Magistrates report and recommendation pages. 1-6, to have his complaint to be dismissed. Meddaugh has submitted an amended complaint, which he ask that this court consider. The alleged debt comes from a car note for a Grand Am 2003, for around $15,000. Also Gateway Financial Services is a debt collector and attorney Scott Schisler is a debt collector who collects debts for Gateway which is subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Goldstein v. Hutton, Ingram, Yuzek, Gainen, 374 F.3d 56 (2nd Cir. 2004) (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) applies to attorneys "regularly" engaging debt collection activity.).
Meddaugh may have more information in his amended complaint.
Id. at PageID.27.
This Court overruled Plaintiff's objections, adopted the R&R, and dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice. See generally Meddaugh v. Gateway Fin. Serv. , No. 1:22-CV-10654, 601 F.Supp.3d 210 (E.D. Mich. May 4, 2022).
Two days later, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), ECF No. 16, and a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, ECF No. 17.
II.
A.
Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(a). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) allows courts to "correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record." FED. R. CIV. P. 60(a). Plaintiff has not identified any mistake in this Court's Judgment, and order, or the record. In this way, Rule 60(a) does not warrant Plaintiff's requested relief.
B.
Rule 60(b) allows the court to "relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons":
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b). Plaintiff's only reason for relief is that "this Honorable Court [should] liberally construe his motion and not hold him to a higher standard are [sic] fault him for not citing the correct law are [sic] legal theory." ECF No. 16 at PageID.43 (citing Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) ). Plaintiff is not being held to a higher standard but the same to which any other pro se party would be held; he did not properly file his complaint, object to the Magistrate Judge's R&R, or request leave to amend. See generally Meddaugh v. Gateway Fin. Serv. , No. 1:22-CV-10654, 601 F.Supp.3d 210 (E.D. Mich. May 4, 2022). And he has not identified any other reason under Rule 60(b) that would afford him the relief that he requests. See generally ECF No. 16.
Plaintiff will not endure any prejudice from the dismissal of his Complaint or the denial of his Motions. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis , meaning he need not pay to sue Defendant. ECF No. 2. And his Complaint was dismissed without prejudice. Meddaugh , 601 F.Supp.3d at 213–14. Plaintiff may simply refile his amended complaint in a new case.
For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment will be denied. Consequently, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint will be denied as moot.
III.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment, ECF No. 16, is DENIED .
Further, it is ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, ECF No. 17, DENIED AS MOOT .