Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00555/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00555-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BAHARI PRASAD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et 

al.,1

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0555 KJM GGH PS 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 

302(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

 The determination that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the 

required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at 

any time if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or 

 

1

 Plaintiff refers to defendant as both Ocwen and Owen in the body of the complaint. The court 

presumes that the reference to Owen is a typographical error and that plaintiff intends to name 

Ocwen Loan Servicing as a defendant. 

Case 2:15-cv-00555-KJM-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against 

an immune defendant. 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 

 A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). 

“The pleading must contain something more...than...a statement of facts that merely creates a 

suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id., quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal 

Practice and Procedure 1216, pp. 235-235 (3d ed. 2004). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 

S.Ct. 1955). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows 

the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 

Id. 

 Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 

S. Ct. 594, 595-96 (1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se plaintiff 

proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before dismissal. 

See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1230. 

 The factual allegations of the complaint are difficult to decipher, but plaintiff alleges that 

on December 14, 2012, he “lawfully revoked” the Deed of Trust between himself and 

Countrywide Bank in regard to real property. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) He alleges that defendant Ocwen 

Case 2:15-cv-00555-KJM-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

Loan Servicing LLC (“Ocwen”) transmitted correspondence to plaintiff which contained defects, 

which it did not cure. Plaintiff also demanded that Ocwen provide him “with authenticated 

documents evidencing the representative agency claimed to be granted to Ocwen.” (Id.) In 

response, Ocwen sent him a document entitled “assignment of deed of trust,” which contained the 

same defects, and to which plaintiff responded with the same demands he made earlier. (Id.) 

Plaintiff apparently did not believe that the deed was reassigned to Ocwen, complaining that the 

assignment documents failed to name Ocwen. The allegations are vague, but plaintiff claims that 

after multiple communications between the parties, Ocwen continued to make “various 

unsupported claims” which perpetrated an “intentional fraud” on plaintiff. (Id. at 6.) 

 Plaintiff’s main problem appears to be that Ocwen has committed fraud by failing to 

provide evidence of its authority to act as in regard to the deed of trust presumably reassigned to 

it, and in particular that it has authority to foreclose on the property. (Id. at 8.) Instead, plaintiff 

claims that defendants have apparently represented that “the entity that currently owns the loan 

and holds the note is Christiana Trust, a division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB...,” 

yet defendants have refused to provide a “lawfully executed Assignment of Deed bearing the 

name of Christiana Trust, Wilmington Savings Fund Society; or ARLP Trust.” (Id. at 8.) Claims 

are for “declaratory judgement regarding standing of defendants,” “declaratory judgement 

regarding fraudulent scheme,” and violations of the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

Aside from the fact that the allegations are vague, the only conceivable federal claim is for 

violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. A claim for due process violations 

based on the Fifth Amendment requires unlawful action by the federal government. Such a claim 

may not be maintained against private parties. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 687 

(9th Cir. 2001); Gilkey v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 WL 4432163, *7 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 16, 

2013) (citing Public Utilities Comm’n of District of Columbia v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451, 461 

(1952); Roberts v. Cameron-Brown Co., 556 F.2d 356, 358-60 (5th Cir. 1997). See also Shelley 

v. Kramer, 334 U.S. 1, 12, 68 S.Ct. 836 (1948) (Fourteenth Amendment). As both Ocwen and 

Scott Anderson are private parties and not governmental entities, plaintiff cannot state a claim for 

due process violation against this defendant. 

Case 2:15-cv-00555-KJM-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/30/15 Page 3 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4

Ordinarily, the court would grant leave to file an amended complaint; however, because 

the only federal claim alleged cannot be maintained against these defendants, leave to amend 

would be futile. 

As there are no federal claims remaining, this court declines to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over plaintiff's possible state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (The district 

courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if—the district court has 

dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”); see also, Acri v. Varian Associates, 

Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000–1001 (9th Cir.1997) (“‘in the usual case in which all federal-law claims 

are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors ... will point toward declining to exercise 

jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims’”), quoting Carnegie–Mellon University. v. 

Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, n. 7, 108 S.Ct. 614, 619, n. 7, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988). 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis is granted. 

 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: the complaint be dismissed without leave to 

amend, for the reasons discussed above. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: April 30, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

GGH:076/Prasad0555.fr 

Case 2:15-cv-00555-KJM-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 4