Court Opinion

ID: 9753804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:30:03.531515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:42.542916
License: Public Domain

ALEXANDER, J.,
dissenting.
[¶ 17] I respectfully dissent. In his protection from abuse filing, Eli Black-house makes bizarre, vexatious, and facially incredible claims against many individuals in his community. A particular focus of his allegations is a vulnerable and likely destitute eighty-six-year-old woman against whom Blackhouse seeks to invoke our judicial processes to evict her from her home and seize some or all of her money. As a reasonable accommodation for his unsupported claim of a disability, Black-house asks that the Court deprive the targets of his allegations of due process of law by accrediting his claims, vacating the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint, and ordering that the action proceed without his being present to be confronted by those against whom he seeks relief.
[¶ 18] This Court holds that Black-house’s request for reasonable accommodation of his alleged disability requires that we accept as true all allegations, no matter how bizarre, and gives a plaintiff license to maintain a bizarre, vexatious, or incredible claim that a trial court would— as it did here — dismiss were it not brought by one claiming a disability. I do not agree that our laws providing protections for individuals with disabilities go so far as to require courts to accredit claims *77brought by persons claiming a disability, when those same claims would be dismissed, and perhaps sanctions imposed, if asserted by an individual not claiming a disability. That is not equal treatment; it is preferential treatment. And such preferential treatment poses significant risk that, in the name of reasonable accommodation, court processes may be abused to the detriment of vulnerable individuals who are the targets of bizarre, vexatious, or incredible claims that a court accredits and allows to proceed.
[¶ 19] The dilemma presented by this Court’s holding is well illustrated by the facts of this appeal. The District Court, perhaps with knowledge of Blackhouse’s history, saw this complaint for what it is— a frivolous, vexatious, and implausible action by a thirty-nine-year-old man seeking to exclude an eighty-six-year-old woman from her home and force her to pay him money. To support his efforts, Black-house asserted many bizarre allegations against his neighbor, his landlord, other tenants, and people in the community. With no documentation except for his own words, he then claimed a disability and demanded, as an accommodation, that he be permitted to avoid being confronted in court by the targets of his accusations. The District Court, seeing the bizarre and incredible allegations in Blackhouse’s complaint at the temporary order stage, could have properly dismissed it without reaching Blackhouse’s request for accommodation.
[¶ 20] Let us take a closer look at the facts and history behind this case. Black-house is a resident of a twelve-unit apartment building in Gardiner. The defendant, Jane Doe, is a resident of another apartment in the same building. Black-house’s pleadings indicate that he has grievances against many individuals arising from his residence at that apartment building.
[¶ 21] In a previous action, Blackhouse had filed a protection from harassment claim, see 5 M.R.S. §§ 4651-4660-A (2010), against the landlord of that building, see Blackhouse v. Connelly, Mem-10-102 (Aug. 12, 2010). In that action, Black-house asserted:
Plaintiff Eli Blackhouse is a housing fraud victim who can neither remain safely within nor relocate outside of the premises of 235 Water Street — where he currently dwells — because Ms. Connelly and her property management company, d/b/a “TLC Properties,” require him to pay an amount of rent that is illegal according to Federal Law. Fully disabled with post-traumatic stress disorder requiring careful management in most public settings, Mr. Blackhouse is presently imperiled by: a) conditions created by the extortion of excessive rent, which violate the apartment’s warranty of habitability (14 MRSA § 6021); and, b) his inability to relocate outside of the thrall of Ms. Connelly, who acquired the building from a previous owner after said owner had extorted over $8000 from his monthly SSDI disbursement check (in a manner both identical to and enabling the continuation of the extortion that would — subsequent to the illegal sale — then go on to be conducted by the Defendant).
[¶ 22] In documents filed in support of his prior request for an order of protection from harassment, Blackhouse had contended that he was the victim of a widespread criminal conspiracy that included, among others, the Augusta Housing Authority, who had caused his relocation from Augusta to Gardiner, and the Maine Medical Center in Portland. Blackhouse also asserted that he was a witness for the “FBI” *78investigating various criminal conspiracies within the State.
[¶ 23] The District Court (Westcott, J.) dismissed Blackhouse’s prior action, and, on appeal, we affirmed the dismissal. Blackhouse, Mem-10-102.
[¶ 24] On May 6, 2010, the Augusta District Court received from Blackhouse an envelope marked “Urgent/Confidential” containing his protection from abuse complaint against Doe that initiated this action. The complaint indicated that Doe was a resident of a different unit in the same building. It also asserted that Doe “is likely tied in to the racketeering'abetment activity being conducted by” a Gard-iner police officer and another individual whose name was indicated.
[¶ 25] The complaint further stated that Blackhouse based his complaint on “stalking-like behaviors including repeated appearances on property she has no right to occupy; has screamed at Plaintiff — a wrongful confinement victim and disabled abuse survivor — on multiple occasions, Harassment.” A document attached to the complaint referenced the Blackhouse v. Connelly matter and asserted that Black-house had been victimized by “a variety of collaborators” with the victimization including “wrongful confinement,” terrorizing, sexual assault, kidnapping, and attempted kidnapping perpetrated by his landlord, members of the Augusta and Gardiner police departments, and others.
[¶ 26] Regarding Doe, the attached document indicated that she was among a group of other individuals whom the landlord illegally permitted to inhabit the other eleven units in the apartment building. Blackhouse also asserted that Doe had “repeatedly” assailed him with abusive dialogue, that she “loiters in common areas” that he could not avoid without confronting her, and that these actions had occurred during a period of his “indoor confinement” which he attributed, not to Doe, but to an “illegal requirement” that he pay rent to his landlord.
[¶ 27] Blackhouse further asserted that Doe appears in common areas of the apartment building, such as the laundry area, which, he contended, should not be occupied by any other tenants in the building. He also objected to her being near the entranceway to the building, which he found offensive. Blackhouse complained of some statements that he asserts Doe made to him, including, for example, “Don’t you run up those stairs,” and asserted that she has at times snickered at him because of some of his actions, such as his closing the fire door on an upper floor of the building.
[¶ 28] For relief, Blackhouse asked that Doe be prevented from contacting him and “any minor children in my charge,” that she be excluded from his residence, and that she be excluded from being, repeatedly and without reasonable cause, at or in the vicinity of his home, school, business, or place of employment. He also asked that he be given possession of, and that Doe be ordered to leave immediately, the entire twelve-unit apartment building.
[¶ 29] Blackhouse further requested that he be given possession of “any money being delivered to [the landlord] as alleged ‘rent’ given the building’s illegal financing via SSDI extortion.” He also requested that Doe be ordered to pay him support, damages, and attorney fees, and that he be given “the right to initiate eviction proceedings against occupants of [the apartment building].” He also suggested that the owner of the building should not be attempting to sell the building during the pendency of the litigation and requested *79that he be exempted from paying rent.4
[¶ 30] In addition to the filings directly attached to the protection from abuse complaint, Blackhouse filed a separate “REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION AND ACCOMMODATION OF VICTIM-RELATED NEEDS RELATIVE TO HABEAS CORPUS VIOLATIONS.” In this document, Blackhouse advised, as he had stated in his earlier action, that he was “fully disabled” and that he suffered “combat-level post-traumatic stress disorder (‘PTSD’) specific to having survived an abduction and medical torture.” Blackhouse stated that the disability prevented him from being physically present in court during the proceedings. He further advised that he should have no contact with uniformed police officers and no visits at his home by representatives of the court without advance notice.
[¶ 31] Blackhouse requested that his alleged disability and his “status as a victim of wrongful confinement” be accommodated by allowing him to proceed without having to enter the physical premises of the court. His request for accommodation further addressed his unhappiness with having to pay rent, alleging that, because of the “extortion” to which he was subjected, he could not pay to get documents notarized and that therefore “notarization requirements themselves will forestall [c]ourt proceedings until the matter of the financial exploitation is addressed.” Other than his own personal statement, Black-house provided no documentation, copies of any medical reports, or anything else indicating his alleged disability.
[¶ 32] Blackhouse requested that the court review the issues relative to his ha-beas corpus concerns, and he specifically requested that, as part of his accommodation, he not be required to pay rent until the matter was resolved.
[¶ 33] Upon review of the merits of Blackhouse’s complaint, the court (Mullen, J.) denied the request for a temporary order, correctly concluding that “the allegations in the sworn complaint are insufficient to support a finding that the plaintiff and/or minor child(ren) is/are in immediate and present danger of abuse from the defendant.” Because the court acted based on its proper finding that the totality of the facts as alleged were insufficient to support granting an ex parte temporary order of protection, the court would have had no need to review Blackhouse’s request for reasonable accommodation. However, it must be noted that in accordance with the accommodation that Black-house had requested, the court acted on his pleadings without requiring that he be present at the courthouse. Thus, although the court may not have reviewed his request for accommodation, Blackhouse received the accommodation he requested at the temporary order stage. The court scheduled the matter for a final hearing on the complaint for protection from abuse on May 24, 2010.
[¶ 34] Doe was served with the complaint on May 14, 2010. There is no indication that Doe has ever appeared in this matter.
[¶ 35] On May 24, 2010, the court (Sou-cy, J.) apparently called the list of pending cases and, when Blackhouse did not appear for the hearing, dismissed the protection from abuse complaint. In common practice, the court, upon calling the case *80and having no party appear, would have dismissed the case without reviewing the file any further. Thus, the only review of the merits of Blackhouse’s claims occurred at the temporary order stage.
[¶ 36] Blackhouse then brought this appeal. On appeal Blackhouse does not contend that he would have presented any new information that was not before the court (Mullen, J.) when it reviewed his pleadings and found his allegations insufficient to justify granting a temporary order providing his requested relief. Blackhouse does contend that the court should have accommodated his alleged disability, heard his case without his being present, and taken the judicial action he requested to exclude Doe from her home and force her to pay him money.
[¶ 37] A person’s right to quiet enjoyment of her residence is a fundamental right to which Doe was entitled, absent some strong proof of impropriety relating to her actions regarding the residence. Further, in any action to exclude Doe from her residence, and in any protection from abuse action, Doe had a right to confront and counter the evidence against her, as we recently held in Jusseaume v. Ducatt, 2011 ME 43, ¶¶ 11-15, 15 A.3d 714, 717-18.
[¶ 38] Considering the allegations in this case, the court could not have, and should not have, granted Blackhouse’s request to exclude his elderly neighbor from her residence without first hearing from Doe and affording her far more process than Blackhouse wanted the court to give her by considering his request for relief without his needing to be present.
[¶ 39] Before consideration of what accommodation, if any, to allow Blackhouse for his alleged disability, the court had a responsibility to evaluate the merits of his protection from abuse claim. There is no right to maintain, and force a named defendant to defend, an incredible, frivolous, or bizarre claim. A person claiming a disability has no greater right than any other person to circumvent the court’s essential gatekeeping function on these issues.
[¶ 40] Addressing a court’s gatekeep-ing function, the United States Supreme Court, in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), has held that a complaint, to avoid dismissal, must be “plausible on its face”:
[W]e do not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Because the plaintiffs here have not nudged them claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed.
[¶ 41] The complaint here, not being plausible on its face, was appropriately dismissed. Other examples of court gatek-eeping activities include Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380-81, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (stating that a court may refuse to allow action to proceed beyond the summary judgment stage based on a story that is “blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it”); United States v. Cooper, 170 F.3d 691, 692 (7th Cir.1999) (stating that a criminal defendant has no constitutional requirement or right to take frivolous appeal); M.R. Civ. P. 91(b) (stating that no entitlement to waiver of fees for indigent maintaining frivolous action).
[¶ 42] Rather than enabling an implausible claim, a court may sanction an individual for bringing a frivolous, vexatious, or implausible protection from harassment or protection from abuse action. See Boggs v. Berthiaume, 2008 ME 169, ¶ 3, 959 A.2d 739, 740-41. In fact, in some instances where, as here, an individual has a history of asserting frivolous, vexatious, *81or implausible claims, we have held that an individual may be barred from bringing further claims without first receiving court permission. See Spickler v. Key Bank of So. Me., 618 A.2d 204, 207-08 (Me.1992).
[¶ 43] On the face of the pleadings filed by Blackhouse, and considering the history of his prior action, the wide ranging and severe relief Blackhouse was seeking against Doe and many others, the deprivation of due process for Doe that Black-house was requesting as an accommodation, and the apparent incredibility of many of Blackhouse’s claims, the trial court properly dismissed Blackhouse’s action. The finding of insufficiency of the evidence on the merits, made at the temporary order stage, can be affirmed when there is no suggestion that at the final hearing stage any evidence would have been presented that was not before the court when it denied the request for a temporary order.
[¶ 44] Reasonable accommodation of anyone with a disability who must be before the court, or who seeks to bring a proper action before the court, is appropriate and is part of our obligation to provide access to justice. But that obligation to provide reasonable accommodation does not extend to lending a hand to promote a facially frivolous, vexatious, or incredible claim, and doing so, as Blackhouse requests, by depriving the targets of his accusations of the right to confront their accuser who seeks to take their money and jeopardize their fundamental right to quiet enjoyment of their homes.
[¶ 45] Because the court appropriately performed its gatekeeping function in this ease, and that gatekeeping function had to be performed before consideration of Blackhouse’s request for reasonable accommodation in the trial setting, I would affirm the judgment of the District Court. Alternatively, I would conclude that the dismissal in this case was harmless error in light of the apparent failure to join indispensable parties against whom relief was sought, or to explain why they were not joined, as required by M.R. Civ. P. 19(b), (c), although that would be an issue for the trial court to consider in the first instance.

. Despite these significant claims for relief against the landlord, other tenants, and others in the community, neither the trial court, nor this Court, has apparently considered whether Blackhouse’s complaint should be dismissed for failure to join indispensable parties, M.R. Civ. P. 19(b), or for failure to state the reasons why persons against whom relief is sought are not joined as parties, M.R. Civ. P. 19(c).