Unpublished Dispositionwinston E. Willis, Plaintiff-appellant, v. First Bank National Association; John Bustemante; Georgeforbes; Mable Jasper; Gerald E. Fuerst; Weltman, Weinberg& Associates; Stephen Markus; Ulmer & Berne; Clevelandheights Police Department; John Doe, an Unknown Namedemployee of the Office of the Clerk or the Office of Thecourt Administrator of the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahogacounty; Jane Roe, an Unknown Named Employee of the Officeof Clerk or the Office of the Court Administrator of Thecommon Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County; James Doe, Anunknown Named Bailiff of the Cleveland Heights Municipalcourt, Defendants-appellees.winston E. Willis; Winston E. Willis, in His Capacity Assole Stockholder, Officer and Person in Control of Assets Ofthe Willis Companies; the Willis Companies; 10546 Euclidave; University Circle Properties Development, Inc.;euclid Loan & Department Store; Big Daddy's Equipmentcompany; New Orleans Restaurant; the Bedroom Lounge,plaintiffs-appellants, v. City of Cleveland, the City of Cleveland and Its Chiefexecutive Officer George Voinovich; Jack Kemp, Unitedstates of America Department of Housing and Urbandevelopment; George Forbes, President of Cleveland Citycouncil; the City of Cleveland Law Department; Communitydevelopment Agency of the City of Cleveland; Clarencegaines, Chief Judge, Housing Court of the City of Cleveland;first Bank National Association, Defendants-appellees, 916 F.2d 714 (6th Cir. 1990)

ORDER

These cases have been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the briefs and records, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

Winston Willis moves to disqualify opposing counsel on appeal from the dismissals of two civil rights actions filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Willis alleged in each complaint that defendants conspired to deprive him of property without due process. In one of the complaints, plaintiff also asserted a claim for relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4601, et seq. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss one of the complaints and dismissed the other sua sponte the same day. Upon consideration, we conclude that the dismissals were proper.

The constitutionality of the foreclosure action underlying plaintiff's claims was adjudicated in Willis v. First Bank Nat'l Ass'n, No. C86-3565 (N.D. Ohio July 19, 1988), aff'd, 878 F.2d 1437 (6th Cir. 1989) (table), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 875 (1990). Therefore, plaintiff's renewed challenge to the foreclosure is barred under principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. See Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153-55 (1979); Duncan v. Peck, 752 F.2d 1135, 1138-39 (6th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff's contention that he was wrongfully evicted from the property in question is merely an extension of the challenge to the foreclosure and is likewise barred. Also, plaintiff is not entitled to relocation assistance because he was displaced by the foreclosure and eviction, not under a federal program within the meaning of the Uniform Relocation Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 4621.

Finally, we note that plaintiff's standing to assert opposing counsel's alleged conflict of interest is questionable at best, and the grounds asserted are wholly unsubstantiated. Cf. FDIC v. Amundson, 682 F. Supp. 981, 984-89 (D. Minn. 1988).

Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to disqualify counsel is denied. The judgments of the district court are affirmed. Rule 9(b) (5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.