Wilson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., No. 5:2010cv01530 - Document 7 (N.D. Ohio 2010)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: The Complaint merely consists of Plaintiff's conclusion that a mortgage is invalid and that foreclosure is inappropriate. Absent are any facts demonstrating that Plaintiff is somehow involved with the Defendant. Because the Complaint is so weak and unsubstantial, it must be dismissed pursuant to Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Accordingly, this action is dismissed. (Related Doc # 1 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 8/11/2010. (P,J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wilson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. Doc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION CHESTER A. WILSON, PETITIONER, vs. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC., aka Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., RESPONDENT. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:10cv1530 JUDGE SARA LIOI MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This action was originally filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio. Defendant Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., aka Wells Fargo Bank N.A., removed the case to this Court on the basis of diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. ' 1332. Plaintiff Chester A. Wilson alleges that the Defendant may not be the creditor on a note and therefore not the real party in interest in a foreclosure action. He questions the authority of all dates and signatures on all documents. No facts are set forth in the Complaint. While pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the district court may dismiss an action sua sponte if the complaint is so “implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion” as to deprive the court of jurisdiction. Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974)). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a Ashort and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.@ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). APro se plaintiffs are not automatically entitled to take every case to Dockets.Justia.com trial.@ Price v. Caruso, 451 F. Supp. 2d 889, 893 (E. D. Mich. 2006) (quoting Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir.1996)). For the reason stated below, this action is dismissed. The Complaint merely consists of Plaintiff=s conclusion that a mortgage is invalid and that foreclosure is inappropriate. Absent are any facts demonstrating that Plaintiff is somehow involved with the Defendant. Because the Complaint is so weak and unsubstantial, it must be dismissed pursuant to Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Accordingly, this action is dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 11, 2010 HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
