Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-1_15-cv-00354/USCOURTS-alnd-1_15-cv-00354-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Discover Bank
Defendant
John Nathan
Defendant
Tammy Prestwood
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

TAMMY PRESTWOOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DISCOVER BANK and JOHN

NATHAN,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-CV-354-VEH

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Pending before the court is the In Forma Pauperis Affidavit and application to

commence this case without prepayment of fees, costs, or security. (Doc. 2) (the “IFP

Petition”). On March 11, 2015, this court conducted a frivolity determination

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and ordered the plaintiff to re-plead her complaint by

April 1, 2015. (Doc. 5 at 5-6). In that order, the court stated that “[s]hould the

Amended Complaint not be filed by April 1, 2015, the court will dismiss this case

for the reasons stated [in document 5], and for want of prosecution.” (Doc. 5 at

6) (emphasis in original). The plaintiff did file an Amended Complaint, albeit late,

on April 6, 2015. (Doc. 6). 

FILED

 2015 May-20 PM 04:31

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 1:15-cv-00354-VEH Document 7 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 11
II. STANDARD

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 governs proceedings in forma pauperis for nonprisoner

plaintiffs. See Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1306 n.1 (11th Cir.

2004) (“Despite the statute’s use of the phrase ‘prisoner possesses,’ the affidavit

requirement applies to all persons requesting leave to proceed IFP.”); see also Haynes

v. Scott, 116 F.3d 137, 140 (5th Cir. 1997) (“We agree with the analysis of the Sixth

Circuit and hold that the affidavit requirement of section 1915(a)(1) applies to all

persons applying to proceed i.f.p.”). The statute also provides that 

[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have

been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court

determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous or malicious[,]

fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted[,] or seeks monetary

relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I), (ii), (iii).”An issue is frivolous when it appears that

‘the legal theories are indisputably meritless.’” Ghee v. Retailers Nat. Bank, 271 F.

App'x 858, 859 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th

Cir. 1993)). In other words, an IFP action is frivolous “if it is without arguable merit

either in law or fact .... [A]rguable means capable of being convincingly argued.” Id.

at 859-60 (citing Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001), and Sun v.

Forrester, 939 F.2d 924, 925 (11th Cir. 1991)) (internal quotations and citations

omitted). 

2

Case 1:15-cv-00354-VEH Document 7 Filed 05/20/15 Page 2 of 11
III. ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT

The complaint names as defendants “Discover Bank issuer of Discover Card,”

(“Discover Bank”) and “John Nathan of Nathan & Nathan P.C., Counsel [for]

Discover Bank,” (“Nathan”). (Doc. 6 at 1). According to the complaint, on January

24, 2009, Prestwood reached an agreement with Discover Bank that she owed a

certain sum of money to that defendant, but that, in fact, she actually owed the money

to an entity known as “Discover Financial Services, LLC” (“Discover Financial”).

Based on this agreement, on February 20, 2009, a consent judgment was entered in

an Alabama state court against the plaintiff, and in favor of Discover Bank. On

October 10, 2012, a process of garnishment was issued to Regions Bank, by the state

court, in an attempt to collect on the aforementioned judgment. 

The Amended Complaint alleges that the garnishment sought any and all

accounts under the plaintiff’s name, but that the only account at the garnishee’s 

institution “was a Business Preferred Personal Checking [Account], which had

Jimmey L[.] Prestwood or Tammy Ladawn Prestwood on it.” (Doc. 6 at 1-2). The

Amended Complaint then outlines the various attempts the plaintiff took in the state

court to prevent the garnishment and unfreeze her funds. (Doc. 6 at 2-9). The

Amended Complaint alleges that the state court denied her requests for relief. 

Also, according to the Amended Complaint, on May 20, 2014, the Alabama

3

Case 1:15-cv-00354-VEH Document 7 Filed 05/20/15 Page 3 of 11
Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the state court’s decision. Thereafter, the Amended

Complaint discusses the plaintiff’s unsuccessful attempts to file certain documents and

obtain a rehearing in the Court of Civil Appeals. (Doc. 6 at 10-11). 

Finally, the complaint confusingly alleges:

(40) Upon getting PDF documentation from Court of Civil Appeals of

Alabama from trial case in Circuit Court of Calhoun County for an

appeal, the following document was included: Discover Bank's Attorney

filed on 12/09/2008 document “AL_02 Civil Case Cover Sheet Nathan

& Nathan File No. 08 44927” in the box for Defendant(s) the only one

checked is “Individual”, which was filed with court. (41) This PDF

document from Court of Civil Appeals was dated 07/28/2014 time

stamped 10:34 am, which we never received this document from

Discover Bank attorney's. (42)Fraud was not discovered until after

initial brief was sent to court and presented in a corrected brief dated

09/29/2014, which was declared moot by Court of Civil Appeals on

01/09/2015. (43)Corrected Brief requested transfer of venue to Alabama

Supreme Court, along with stating fraud of Discover Bank's Attorney

relialized on 09/29/2014.1

(Doc. 6 at 11) (italics in original).

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

“‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.’ Kokkonen v. Guardian Life

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994).

That federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction means that they ‘possess only that

1

 The court chooses not to clutter this paragraph with numerous “sics” or other such

indicia. This paragraph is presented exactly as it was written by the plaintiff in her Amended

Complaint. 

4

Case 1:15-cv-00354-VEH Document 7 Filed 05/20/15 Page 4 of 11
power authorized by [the] Constitution and statute.’ Id.” United States v. Rivera, 613

F.3d 1046, 1049 (11th Cir. 2010). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

requires that every pleading which “states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short

and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(1). In its order instructing the plaintiff to replead this matter, the court

specifically ordered the plaintiff the cite “[t]he statute, code, rule of law, or other

means by which you contend that this court has subject matter jurisdiction, personal

jurisdiction, and venue, over this matter.” (Doc. 5 at 5-6). The Amended Complaint

(doc. 6) contains no jurisdictional statement. This court is mindful, however, of the

Supreme Court’s instruction that “a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded,

must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081

(2007) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Accordingly, the court will attempt

to determine for itself the basis for jurisdiction based on the claims in this case.

There are no claims in this case which “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or

treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331.2 All of the plaintiff’s claims are

2The closest the plaintiff comes is her citations to "2009 16 CFR 444.444-1," "31 CFR

part 902 19.13(a)," and "Federal Rule 60(b)." The court is unable to decifer to exactly which

portion of the Code of Federal Regulations the first two citations are referring. Regardless, she

fails to explain how these regulations create a cause of action in her favor. Finally, no cause of

action can be maintained based on a rule of civil procedure. 

5

Case 1:15-cv-00354-VEH Document 7 Filed 05/20/15 Page 5 of 11
therefore state law claims. Then, the only basis for jurisdiction could be “where the

matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and

costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332. “Since

Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806), [the Supreme Court has]

read the statutory formulation ‘between ... citizens of different States’ to require

complete diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants.” Lincoln Prop. Co. v.

Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89, 126 S. Ct. 606, 613, 163 L. Ed. 2d 415 (2005) (quoting 28

U.S.C. § 1332.

As noted above, one of the defendants in this case is “John Nathan of Nathan

& Nathan P.C. Counsel for Discover Bank.” The court takes judicial notice of the fact

that Nathan & Nathan, P.C. has its offices in Birmingham, Alabama. The court also

takes judicial notice of the fact that Mr. Nathan is the owner/managing partner of that

firm and is a citizen of Alabama. The plaintiff too is a citizen of Alabama. In the

absence of complete diversity, this court does not have jurisdiction over this matter

and this case must be dismissed.3

B. Claims

There are further reasons why this matter should be dismissed. To the extent

3

 Further, no facts are alleged to demonstrate that the requisite amount in controversy has

been satisfied.

6

Case 1:15-cv-00354-VEH Document 7 Filed 05/20/15 Page 6 of 11
that any claim against any defendant is based upon the alleged naming of the wrong

plaintiff in the state court case against the plaintiff,4

that was an issue which should

have been, and possibly was, raised at the state court trial and appellate levels. 

Indeed, as part of her remedies, the plaintiff seeks relief from the state court orders. 

“Under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts lack jurisdiction to engage

in appellate review of state court determinations.” In re Al-Sedah, 347 B.R. 901, 904

(Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2005) (citing Greenberg v. Zingale, 2005 WL 1432471, at *3 (11th

Cir. June 20, 2005) (citing Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466 (11th Cir.1996); Exxon

Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 1521, 161

L.Ed.2d 454 (2005)). Further, in Alabama, “[c]laims of fraudulent misrepresentation

and suppression are subject to a two-year statute of limitations.” Foremost Ins. Co.

v. Parham, 693 So. 2d 409, 417 (Ala. 1997) (citing Ala. Code § 6-2-38(l)). To the

extent that any fraud is based on that incident, it occurred when the state court action

was originally filed, more than two years before the filing of the instant case. 

Therefore, the claim is time-barred.

There are also the following fraud-based claims in this case:5

4

 For example, the plaintiff’s first cause of action reads: “2009 16 CFR 444.444-1

Discover Bank wrong plaintiff in trial Court (Discover Financial Services LLC reported and

acted on debt they sent collection letter(s) received during 2008[)].”

5

 In the interest of brevity and to avoid clutter, the court will reproduce the plaintiff’s

claims verbatim, without correcting grammar, punctuation, or style.

7

Case 1:15-cv-00354-VEH Document 7 Filed 05/20/15 Page 7 of 11
§ 6-5-101 Fraud - Misrepresentations of material facts 

Discover Bank's lawyer(s) Mr. Reed stated in court, see line 30 several

lines down, “I mean if you look at the Regions statements of which there

are a number - and the account is Jimmy L. Prestwood or Tammy

Ladawn Prestwood. That's a joint account. It was a joint account. We can

go after it.” Discover Bank's lawyer(s) filed beginning case a document

AL_02 see line 40 a case for Individual was check not Business to go

after consent Judgment.

. . . 

§ 6-5-103 Deceit 

Discover Bank's lawyer(s) stated in line 30 verbatim of trial "indicates

Business Preferred Personal Checking. Undisputed” Discover Bank's

lawyer(s) filed beginning case a document AL_02 see line 40 a case for

Individual not Business to go after consent Judgment.

. . . 

6-5-103 Deceit 

Yet, during trial Discover Bank's lawyer lied to court with following

statement: "MR. REED: We represent Discover Bank in this. But we

filed - I think one the issues whether the garnishment was proper or not.

We filed a response to it." No response was received by Discover Bank's

lawyer(s) and no record in PDF file for Appeal that they responded .

. . . 

6-5-103 Deceit 

Discover Bank's lawyer (s) filed form C-21 stating: "(Any and all

accounts)" under "Name and Address of Garnishee" for an Individual

unsecured debt.

(Doc. 6 at 12-13) (bold in original). “[A]n essential element of any fraud claim is

reasonable reliance.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Alabama Dep't of Conservation &

Natural Res., 986 So. 2d 1093, 1125 (Ala. 2007). To the extent that there are 

8

Case 1:15-cv-00354-VEH Document 7 Filed 05/20/15 Page 8 of 11
representations in these claims, there are no facts pled which indicate any reliance by

the plaintiff. Further, the same Rooker–Feldman principles would apply here to bar

these claims–all of which appear to clearly be based on events which occurred during

state court proceedings. Finally, to the extent that any fraud claim is based on the

filing of a Civil Action Cover Sheet sheet at the beginning of the state court case, that

clearly occurred more than two years ago. Any such claim is therefore also time

barred.6

Similarly, the Rooker–Feldman doctrine applies to bar the following claims:

§ 6-5-260 Deprivation of owner of possession

Committed by Discover Bank lawyer(s) by not releasing Business Assets

of The Prestwood's. Also, being awarded by Circuit Court Judge John

Thomason.7

6

 To the extent that the plaintiff is arguing that she only recently discovered the cover

sheet, her claim still fails. If she has never seen it before, she could have never relied upon

anything stated in it. 

7

 To the extent that this claim is directed to Judge Thomason, it fails because Judge

Thomason is not a defendant in this case. The plaintiff similarly appears to make claims against

Judge Thomason when she writes:

§6-5-104(3) The suppression of a fact by one who is bound to disclose it:

§ 6-5-102 Suppression of material facts: Circuit Court Judge, John Thomason, for

allowing case to go forward was for individual not business Discover Bank's

attorney(s) filed a Garnishment/Levy for Individual.

. . . 

Canon 3(2) (3) (4) Biased Judge as per Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics his

actions before and during trial of lack of due process guaranteed by U.S.

Constitution and Alabama Constitution. Also, by him refusing to recuse himself

of trial case due to his lack impartiality guaranteed in State Constitution

9

Case 1:15-cv-00354-VEH Document 7 Filed 05/20/15 Page 9 of 11
. . . 

§ 8-9-11 Agreements to confess by Discover Bank being wrong plaintiff

in trial Court.

(Doc. 6 at 12).8

V. CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, the court finds that all claims in the amended

complaint are without arguable merit either in law or fact, and are therefore frivolous. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this matter will therefore be DISMISSED as frivolous. 

A final order will be entered.

SECTION 13.

(Doc. 6 at 12, 13). These claims too fail since Judge Thomason is not a defendant in this matter. 

Further, a Canon of ethics is not a basis for a cause of action.

8

 The court notes that the plaintiff also cites the following as a claim:

31 CFR part 902 19.13(a)

MR. REED: STATED -“They claim that the only remedy for a debt of this nature

is wage garnishment. That's simply not Alabama law.” It federal law for

unsecured debt.

(Doc. 6 at 12). The court previously discussed this “claim” in footnote 2 and explained that the

citation was impossible to decifer and also that the plaintiff had not explained how this

“regulation” provided a claim in her favor. See note 2, infra. The court also notes that the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine would apply to bar this claim as well, as it appears to be clearly based

on some discussion which occurred in the state court proceedings. Additionally, the plaintiff

cites to Rule 60 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure which cannot form the basis of a claim. 

(Doc. 6 at 13). 

10

Case 1:15-cv-00354-VEH Document 7 Filed 05/20/15 Page 10 of 11
DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of May, 2015.

 

 VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS

United States District Judge

11

Case 1:15-cv-00354-VEH Document 7 Filed 05/20/15 Page 11 of 11