United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
PATRICK A. DAVIS
MID STATE HOMES, ET AL.
HORNSBY MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ELIZABETH E. FOOTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants
Mid State Homes ("Mid State") and Green Tree
Servicing LLC ("Green Tree"), asking the Court to
strike or dismiss the pleading filed by Patrick Davis
("Plaintiff) entitled "Plaintiffs Second Motion to
Amend Pleading." [Record Document 26]. Defendants allege
that this pleading does not satisfy minimum pleading
standards and is not actionable as a matter of law. [Record
Document 27]. For the reasons discussed below,
Defendants' motion to dismiss is hereby
GRANTED and Plaintiffs claims against
Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
appearing pro se, filed this civil action against Mid State
on December 1, 2017. Record Document 1. He then sought and
was granted leave to amend his complaint to include Green
Tree as a defendant. Record Documents 2-4.
Defendants subsequently filed their first motion to
dismiss. Record Document 11. Plaintiff also filed a
motion for summary judgment. Record Document 18. This Court
denied both Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and
Defendants' motion to dismiss and granted Plaintiff leave
to amend his complaint. Record Document 23. The Court
instructed Plaintiff to provide additional information
regarding his fraud claim and his claims under the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ("SCRA").
Id. at 4 & 12. Plaintiff then filed a second
amended complaint. Record Document 26. Defendants responded
by filing a second motion to dismiss. Record Document 27. The
motion is opposed. Record Documents 31 &
alleges that he entered into a construction and mortgage
agreement with Mid State in September of 2002 whereby Mid
State would construct a dwelling on a lot Plaintiff owned in
Shreveport ("the property"). Record Document 26, p.
3. A mortgage on the property was recorded. Record Document
1, p. 1. Plaintiff claims that the property "has not
been conveyed from ownership by the Plaintiff pursuant to any
[s]tate [s]tatute of Louisiana." Record Document 26, p.
3. Plaintiff states that he found employment in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana in February of 2006 but did not "relinquish
his residence in Shreveport, LA." Record Document 36, p.
3. The Court interprets this to mean that Plaintiff has not
lived on the property since February of 2006.
states that Mid State conducted a seizure of his property in
February 2006. Id. at 7. This seizure was allegedly
done without notice to Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff
claims that because he "served on periods of active
military duty from May 2005 through November 2006," this
seizure violated the SCRA. Id. at 12. Mid State
allegedly violated the SCRA when it seized his property in
February 2006 without notice and before the expiration of the
time period provided by the SCRA to withhold a foreclosure,
repossession, seizure, or sale of the property of a
servicemember who is ordered to active military duty.
Id. at 12.
alleges that he was issued an IRS Form 1099-C for
Cancellation of Debt related to the property for the 2007 tax
year, and that this document is recorded. Record Documents
26, p. 3; 4, p. 2. According to Plaintiff, this document
cancelled a large portion of Plaintiff s debt owed on the
mortgage "without explanation." Record Document 26,
p. 3. Plaintiff claims that this document caused him to
continue to believe that he owned the property, but also
claims that he periodically inspected the web sites for the
City of Shreveport and Caddo Parish to see if his property
would "become listed as being in jeopardy and of
becoming adjudicated...." Id. at 3-4 & 9.
noticing a decrease in the assessment of ad valorem taxes on
the property, Plaintiff discovered that an individual named
Wallete T. Willis was granted a homestead exemption on the
property and appeared to be living there. Id. at 4.
Plaintiff also discovered that "the Defendant or an
agent thereof previously "attempted to [m]ortgage"
the property to two individuals named Christopher B. Thomas
and Sheira M. Forster. Id. This mortgage was
allegedly enacted without notice to Plaintiff and is recorded
in the "Caddo Parish Court civil docket."
Id. Plaintiff has attempted, but has been unable, to
contact Wallete T. Willis and inquire as to why he or she is
inhabiting his property. Id.
December 1, 2017, after filing his original complaint,
Plaintiff discovered that Green Tree conveyed the property to
an unknown party in May of 2013. Id. at 5. He claims
the conveyance is recorded and is entitled, "Quitclaim
Deed, Vendor's Lien and Special Mortgage."
Id. Despite this conveyance, Plaintiff claims that
he has not "relinquished his ownership of the property.
makes several other complaints against Defendants, including
claims that they refused to accept payments from Plaintiff
that were made in an attempt to fulfill his mortgage
obligations (id at 9); that the mortgage contract
between himself and Mid State contains "conflicting
obligations" that should be interpreted in his favor
(id at 10); and that Defendants recorded a
"false duplicate" mortgage in the Caddo Parish
Court, which Plaintiff wishes to have cancelled (id.
original and his first amended complaint, Plaintiff suggests
several forms of relief, including a refund of all payments
made to Mid State, compensation for personal items lost when
the property was seized, and compensation for the lot upon
which the dwelling was built. See Record Document 4,
p. 3; 1, p. 2.
their second motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that
Plaintiff still fails to satisfy minimum pleading standards.
Record Document 27-1, p. 5. Defendants also claim that
Plaintiff does not have private a right of action under the
SCRA and that any SCRA claim Plaintiff might have would be
time-barred. Id. at 6. In response, Plaintiff filed
a "Motion to Strike," which was construed by this
Court as an opposition to the motion to dismiss. Record
Documents 31 & 32. Plaintiff also filed a "Motion
for Leave to Submit Notice of Constitutional Question,"
which this Court construed as a supplemental opposition to
the motion to dismiss. Record Documents 34-36. In these
filings, Plaintiff complains that Defendants' defenses
are "impertinent," "disrespectful and
unconstitutional," that the motion to dismiss is written
in an "instructional type of language," and that
Defendants' argument that the statute of limitations has
run in this case is unconstitutional. Record Documents 31, p.
4; 36, p. 5. Plaintiff also claims that the seizure of his
residence in 2006 by Mid State constituted a violation of his
First, Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and
that 28 U.S.C. § 1658, which Defendants cite in support
of their argument that the statute of limitations has run on
Plaintiffs claims, is unconstitutional. Record Document 36,