Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Schirmer v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

November 22, 2017

CHRIS VON SCHIRMER, Plaintiff,
v.
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, as trustee for STANWICH MORTGAGE, MERS INC., COUNTRYWIDE HOMELOANS, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants.

          ORDER RENOTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

          ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge.

         This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. 1. The Court has considered the application and remaining file.

         On November 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a proposed complaint and request for injunction relating to real property commonly known as 156 Peppermill Road, Kelso, Washington against his lender and others (Dkt. 1-1) and the pending application for IFP (Dkt. 1). The Court will first review the proposed complaint and then address the application.

         REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED COMPLAINT

         Review of the Complaint.

         The court has carefully reviewed the proposed complaint in this matter. Because plaintiff filed this proposed complaint pro se, the court has construed the pleadings liberally and has afforded plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.1988). Even so, the proposed complaint is difficult to understand, and is not “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ” as is required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 (a)(2). Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 (a):

Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.

         While the pleading standard under Rule 8 “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations, ' it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Although pleadings drafted by a party proceeding pro se must be read more liberally than pleadings drafted by counsel, a pro se litigant is not excused from knowing the most basic pleading requirements. See American Ass'n of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1107-08 (9th Cir. 2000).

         In his proposed complaint, Plaintiff alleges that sometime in 2007-2008 he began refinancing his mortgage with Countrywide Home Loans Inc. (“Countrywide”) 90 days before the interest rate went up under his adjustable rate mortgage. Dkt. 1-1, at 7. Plaintiff asserts that “the process should have taken no more than two (2) weeks to one (1) month maximum” and that by 60 days Plaintiff could see that Countrywide “was maliciously and intentionally dragging the process on and on.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that it took so long, his interest rate and monthly payment rose considerably. Id. Plaintiff maintains that someone who worked at Countrywide called him and told him that Countrywide was going out of business. Id., at 8. Plaintiff states that he “made the decision to protect [his] good name by putting the note in [his] friend, Bruce Smith's, name.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that the “[t]he current holder of the note claims [he is] in arrears and wants to conveniently try to steal [his] home without even making contact with him - unless you consider papers that were left on the sidewalk outside of [his] house.” Id.

         Plaintiff references due process and “individual civil rights pertaining to the constitution of the United States” and maintains that “[c]auses of action exist from divergent paths taken by both the mortgage note and deed and trust, ” and that there is “no definitive claimant of ownership of the note(s) due to the divergent paths taken.” Dkt. 1-1, at 4-5. He also states that “this action cites: fraud, negligence, and misrepresentation attributed to Defendants' multiple violations of ignoring proper loan procedures.” Id., at 5. Plaintiff asserts that there is “no valid trustee's deed.” Id. Plaintiff claims damages of $3, 500, 000.00, but, despite the title of the proposed complaint, doesn't identify the injunctive relief he seeks. Id.

         Sua ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.