TYREE v. DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC et al, No. 1:2019mc00015 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION in support of 2 Order dismissing action. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 4/15/2019. (lctjk1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dockets.Justia.com RUTHA TYREE, Petitioner, v. Misc. No. 19-15 (TJK) DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC et al., Respondents. Maurice Tyree, on behalf of the estate of Petitioner Rutha Tyree, initiated this action by filing a document titled an “Official Stipulated Final Judgment and Order for Criminal Penalties, Permanent Injunction, and Other Equitable Relief Under Seal of the United States” on February 4, 2019. ECF No. 1. In that filing, he contends that ten entities he refers to as the Respondents, including the city of Chicago, the Social Security Administration, and the Internal Revenue Service, have agreed to the entry of a stipulated final judgment against them in an unidentified action. Id. at 2. The stipulated final judgment imposes criminal penalties against them under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. Id. Further, the document characterizes Respondents’ allegedly-illegal acts—which relate to the mailing of several debtcollection letters to Petitioner, id. at 4–5—as “terrorism” and grants the Department of Homeland Security the authority “to take action” against Respondents, id. at 11. And finally, the TYREE v. DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC et al Doc. 3 filing awards Petitioner’s estate approximately $6,500,000.00 in damages resulting from Respondents’ alleged criminal activity. Id. at 12. It is well-settled that an action “may be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds when it ‘is patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for decision.’” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). A “patently insubstantial” claim is one that is “flimsier than ‘doubtful or questionable’—[it] must be ‘essentially fictitious.’” Best, 39 F.3d at 330 (quoting Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–39 (1973)). Such claims may be dismissed sua sponte “prior to service on the defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) when, as here, it is evident that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” Evans v. Suter, Civ. No. 09-5242, 2010 WL 1632902, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 2, 2010). The claims in Maurice Tyree’s filing that initiated this action are patently insubstantial. Although he filed what he contends is a final stipulation agreed to by all parties, he is the only signee, and he fails to identify the proceeding to which the stipulation relates. His filing, therefore, appears to be an attempt to induce the Court to enter judgment in a nonexistent action. Moreover, he requests that the Court impose criminal penalties under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which only provides for civil remedies. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k. To the extent that he seeks to bring civil claims under that Act, he must file a complaint, unlike the one here, that meets the pleading standards under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). In fact, the instant filing is predicated on an agreement between the parties that appears to be “essentially fictitious” and thus presents no federal question suitable for decision, even accounting for the less stringent standards to which pro se litigants’ pleadings are held. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). For the above reasons, in a separate order, the Court will dismiss this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. /s/ Timothy J. Kelly TIMOTHY J. KELLY United States District Judge Date: April 15, 2019 2
]]>
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.
