United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
DARLENE J. DAVIS, Plaintiff,
COMMONWEALTH TRUSTEES, LLC, et al. 9 Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION (GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION
TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT)
Roderick C. Young United States Magistrate Judge.
Darlene J. Davis ("Plaintiff), is again before this
Court claiming that her home was the subject of a wrongful
and fraudulent foreclosure apparently during the course of
Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings. As best as can be
discerned, Plaintiff maintains that her mortgage loan is not
in default and that she has never received notice to the
contrary. She also alleges that her mortgage was improperly
transferred into a false mortgage account. The present
rendition of her claims was originally the subject of a
Complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Spotsylvania County,
Virginia (CL19-1925). Defendants timely filed a Notice of
Removal to this Court. Defendants subsequently filed a Motion to
Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (the
"Motion") based in part on their contention that
this Court has previously rejected identical claims against
the same Defendants. (ECF No. 3.) While the Defendants have
filed detailed memoranda supporting their Motion, Plaintiff,
who is pro se, has advised the Court that she
declines to participate in any litigation in federal court.
Despite being afforded additional opportunities to file a
responsive pleading, Plaintiff has declined to do so.
the details of Plaintiff s claims are difficult to discern
from her stream of conscious Complaint, they are not
unfamiliar to this Court. As another Judge of this Court
observed in connection with her prior lawsuit, Plaintiffs
pleadings are adorned with barely decipherable hand-written
marginalia. Her immediate state court Complaint fails to
particularize her specific claims. It merely alleges that she
is the victim of a wrongful and fraudulent foreclosure
process. She maintains that she never received notice of
default and that her loan had a zero balance. Plaintiff also
appears to contend that documents pertaining to her loan and
the foreclosure were forged or fabricated. It would appear
that she seeks to have the foreclosure set aside, the
foreclosing deed of trust removed, and the title to the
property placed in her name.
claims have been rejected by this Court in Davis v.
Specialized Loan Servicing LLC. No. 3:17-cv-787-REP,
2018 WL 3352647 (E.D. Va. July 9, 2018). After expressing
difficulty in construing the exact nature of Plaintiff s
claims, Judge Robert E. Payne concluded that Plaintiff had
not stated facts that would enable the court to afford her
any of the relief sought, namely undoing the assignment of
the deed of trust, obtaining relief for alleged fraud, or
awarding quiet title to the property. See Id. at
*5-7. Her present claims fair no better. The Complaint
presently before the Court is equally lean on facts, and if
squared against Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), it would fail to pass
Court acknowledges that pro se complaints are
afforded a liberal construction. Laber v. Harvey,
438 F.3d 404, 413 n.3 (4th Cir. 2006). The Court, however,
need not attempt "to discern the unexpressed intent of
the plaintiff." Id. Nor does the requirement of
liberal construction excuse a clear failure in the pleading
to allege a federally cognizable claim. See Weller v.
Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir.
1990). As the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit explained in Beaudett v. City of Hampton,
"[t]hough [pro se] litigants cannot, of course,
be expected to frame legal issues with the clarity and
precision ideally evident in the work of those trained in
law, neither can district courts be required to conjure up
and decide issues never fairly presented to them." 775
F.2d 1274, 1276 (4th Cir. 1985). Absent facts distinguishing
the immediate case from Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-787, her
claims are precluded by res judicata.
As the Fourth Circuit restated in SAS Inst, Inc. v. World
The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, applies
when three elements are satisfied. "[T]here must be: (1)
a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) an
identity of the cause of action in both the earlier and the
later suit; and (3) an identity of parties or their privies
in the two suits."... Res judicata is ultimately
governed by whether the present case has already been
decided, and whether the party has previously had a fair shot
with respect to the claims raised in this present action.
874 F.3d 370, 378 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Pueschel v.
United States, 369 F.3d 345, 354-55 (4th Cir. 2004)
(alteration in original)). These elements squarely fit the
case at hand.
Specialized Loan Servicing LLC and The Bank of New York
Mellon were named parties in Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-787.
Plaintiffs current claims of fraud, forgery, and document
fabrication are identical to the prior
proceeding. After thoroughly reviewing Plaintiffs
sparse complaint, the Court previously dismissed her claims
without prejudice and allowed her to file a second amended
complaint with "claims for which there is a factual
basis." Davis, 2018 WL 3352647, at *8. Since
she has failed to do so, this case will therefore be
dismissed with prejudice.
appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
 Plaintiffs Complaint named the
following as Defendants: Commonwealth Trustees LLC, Rosenberg
& Associates, Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, The Bank of
New York Mellon, Fortune Investment Enterprises LLC, and John
Does 1-100. At this stage, only two Defendants, Specialized
Loan Servicing LLC and The Bank of New York Mellon, have
entered appearances. Together they removed the case.
Therefore, for the purpose of this Memorandum Opinion, these
two entities will be collectively referred to as
 Plaintiffs fraud claim would also fall
short under Virginia law. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
v. Remley,270 ...