Cnse 3:12-ev-*50S&-RJ* l]**un":ernt 3?

{:ii*d fi3/?0112 Fag* 1 of

1CI

2
J

4
5

6
7
8

9
10

TINITED STATE,S DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

1l
12

ROBERTA KELLY,

CASE NO. I2-5088 RJB

Plaintiff,
V. 13

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

14
15

l6
t7
18

MORGAN CHASE & CO, USBancorp US BANK. LEE MITATJ, GENEF-AL MORTGAGE GMAC, MERSCORP, MERS, MORTGAGE, E,LECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, MATTHEW CLEVERLEY, C. MARIE E,CKERT, TERESA H. PEARSON, JEANNE KALLAGE SINNOTT, DAVID WEIBEL,
JP

Defendants.
19

20

This matter comes before the Court onpro se Plaintiff s Motion to Arnend Complaint. Dkt.

2l
22
ZJ

22. The Court has considered

the pleadings filed regarding the motion, the remaining

record and is fully advised.

plaintiff s motion to amend the Complaint (Dkt. 22) should

be denied. Amendment

24

would be futile. Fudher, Plaintiff should be ordered to show cause, if any she has, why the

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE- I

Cnse 3:12-cv-050S8-R"",n Dccument

32

{iled *UZAI12 Fag* 2 af 1*

original Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Lastly, all Plaintiff
pending motions should be renoted to be considered on March 30,2012.

2
J
1

I.
Plaintiff, who has brought many
cases

FACTS pro se in federal and state courts, is subject to a

4
5

pre-filing order in the District of Oregon, dated November 2,2011, that provides: "[a]ll filings
from Roberta Kelly and/or Brent Webster, individually, collectively, or in alleged connection

6
7
8

with any other party, SHALL BE REVEIWED BY THIS COURT AND ORDERED FILED ONLY IF SUCH FILINGS ARE DEEME,D NOT FRIVOLOUS OR REPETITIYE,'' IN TC Kelly, U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, case number 3:l l -mc-09266,
and
J.

Dkl

t0 (November 2,2011) (emphasis in original). This ruling follows a Findings

ll
13

Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Oregon, Dennis
cases

l2 Hubel, and adopted by the District Court, dismissing two consolidated

because the claims were

with prejudice

"incomprehensible." Roberta Kelly v. C. Marie Echert, et al..U.S.

case number 3:11-mc-00949,

l4 District Court for the District of Oregon.

l5

Dkt. l5 (Sepiember

14,

2011). The Findings and Recommendation also lists five other of Plaintiff s Oregon cases which
as a sanction

t6 were dismissed either on motions to dismiss or summary judgment motions, or t7 failing to comply with court orders.
18

for

1d

A few months after the pre-filing order in Oregon was entered, Plaintiff filed this case in
1.

t9 Cowlitz County, Washington Superior Cour1. Dkt.

20
21

A. THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

The Complaint in this case alleges that Plaintiff is bringing the action on behalf of herself
and three other parties. Dkt. that:

22
23

3. A majority of the Complaint

is unclear. For example, it alleges

24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE- 2

Case 3:12-cv-05088-RJB Dccunrent

32

Filed 83120112 Page 3 of

1C

I
2
J
1

McCarthy Holthus, LLP, . . . Matthew R. Cleverley, . . . filed a fraudulent foreclosure and, I/We, Roberta Kelly and D. Lawrence Olstand and; [L. Carlyle Martin and Linda C. Marlin], in Cowlitz County in the Superior Couft of Washington State, argued in Court, on the record, regarding Udair and Deceptive Practices, FRAUD, Washington Mutual [WAMU and USBANCORP], et al. Dkt. 3, at2 (emphasis in original). The Complaint "moves" "for settlement:

4
5

[]

In or about June

4,2010, at 5109 NE Ainsworth St., Portland OR97218, the intentional Sale Fail cause
irreparable harm to 200 Coyote Lane, Castle Rock, WA 9861

6
7
8

1." Id. (emphasis in original). The

Complaint alleges that "[s]tock for JP Morgan Chase & Co., has diminished to $2.00 per share or less. Hank Paulson is, according to international news, to be accountable. . . ." Id. The
o'are all direct Complaint alleges various parties and the some of the named Defendants

l0 participants inthe

Sale

Fail." Id. (emphasis in original). The Complaint states "the entirety of

ll

the claim(s) must be filed in the State of Oregon, Multnomah County Court." Id., at

3.

The

l2 Complaint further alleges that "[F]raud

and unfair and Deceptive Practices by and through

l3 USBANCORP/USBank, with multiple defendants [and licensed attorney(s)l)' Id. t4

15

B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Former Defendants John V. Acosta and Ann Aiken,
as

judicial officers of the courts of

16

the United States for the District of Oregon, "who were at all times relevant to this lawsuit acting
as

t7 under color of their office and/or in the performance of their duties

judicial officers,"

l8 removed this action under 28 U.S.C. 5 1442. Dkt. 1. The claims against these judges from
t9 Oregon were dismissed on March 6,2012. Dkt. 21.
20

Many of the other Defendants have also moved to dismiss the claims against them, including Defendant General Mortgage ("GMAC"), in its Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Transfer Venue (Dkt. l8), noted for consideration on March 30,2012, and

2l
22
23

24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE-

Case 3:12-cv-050E8-RJE Do*ument

32

{fi*d ASl7AlQ Page 4 *f

fi

Defendants Matthew Cleverley and Fidelity National Title. in their Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 30), noted for consideration on March 30,2012.

2 J
1

Plaintiff, in addition to the instant motion discussed below, has filed several other
pleadings, including a "Request for Reasonable Accommodation" (Dkt.24), "Motion Request

4
5

for Reasonable Accommodation, Amended" (Dkt. 25), "Motion United States Constitution
[Bundle of Rights] Bill of Rights, I through X, State of Washington Constitution, Move Roberla

7
8

Kelly, Ian Wilson, Ryan Wilson from the Superior Court in the State of Washington for Cowlitz
County to the United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma" (Dkt.27),

"Rule 53.3 Appointment of Masters in Discovery Matters Exhibit and Grievance against a
and a hand written letter requesting that the

l0 Lawyer, Complaint and Geithner Exhibit" (Dkt.29),

ll

Court notify U.S. Attorney Jenny A. Durkan that Plaintiff is at her Washington address and does

l2 not have power or water (Dkt. 3 1). To the extent that Plaintiff intends these pleadings to be
t3
motions, they are presently noted for March 23,2012, in accord with Western District

of

t4 Washington Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 (d). l5

16

C. MOTION AND PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT

In the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her Cornplaint. Dkt. 22. 7n this
makes reference to "due process," the Truth in Lending

l7 proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff l8 Act ("TILA"), l9 generally

20
21

and the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act

("RESPA"). Dkt. 22. She

references the Washington State Constitution, including the preamble, and the U.S.

Constitution. Dkt. 22. She also generally references Washington's Consumer Protection Act.
Further, she adds new Defendants, including individual Stephen M. Cutler, and entities like the U.S. Deparlment of the Treasury and the Social Security Administration. Dkt.

22
23

22.

She discusses

tlre tu'o properties from the original Cornplaint, and an additional propefty in Oregon. DkL22.

24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE- 4

Case 3;12-cv-05C88-RJn Dccument

32

filed C3120112 Page 5 of 1C

Plaintiff s new allegations are also difficult to follow. She alleges that she was, at some
point, employed in the rnortgage industry. Dkt. 22, at 8. Plaintiff alleges that she was defined
a "preferred broker" and had a
as

2 J 4
5
1

"book of business." Dkt. 22, at 8. She then alleges that she was

"defrauded as have been millions of Americans by the alleged lenders of money.IE Banks." Dkt.
22, at 8 (emphasis in

originat).

She asserts that "[b]anks do not lend actual reat money," that the

"Federal Reserve System [Fed] manufactures via a printing press, Federal Reserve notes as alleged U.S. dollars," "member banks such as Chase, US Bank, ET AL, receive computer digits

7
8

from the Fed" and the banks make loans at "incalculable usury interest." DkL22, al8 (emphasis in original). She asserts that US Bank sold a note on one of
22.

t;. Oregon properties,

and so

l0 violated various statutes. DkL

1l

Plaintiff alleges that she "took over the payments" on the Washington properly in 2003
and Mrs.

l2 from a Mr.

Martin. Dkt. 22.

She asserts that the

"first mortgage loan" on the

She then states that:

l3 Washington property had an "illegal/unlawful note." Dkt. 22, aI11.

14
15

t6

The Kelso-Longview area was in a continuance of a severe depression; (i) Alcoa had been globaiized, (ii) Mt. St. Helen's eruption was not yet in recovery at the time The Martins were sold the alleged mortgage notes, (iii) WAMU Neg-Am was a note where the loan could be adjusted up to as high as one hundred and twenty-five percent U25%l of the amount of the alleged loan sold to a consumer.
She alleges that "Chase" purchased

l7 Dkt.22, at 11.
18

"WAMU,"

and that Chase violated

TILA

and

RESPA "et cetera" on the Washington property. Dkt. 22, at

1l

(emphasis in original).

I9
20

Her proposed amended complaint also alleges that Ronald Frashour

III of the Porlland

Police Bureau entered her Portland home and "emptied his canister of Sabre Red pepper onto

2t
22
23

Plaintiff." Dkt. 22, at l3.

She next states that

"[i]n December 2009, Robert Seaver,

an expeft

witness for Plaintiff Kelly's lawsuit against the PPB had filed an Oregon BAR cornplaint against the PPB and its former Chief of Polioe Ifuuger for the Nazi cult ritually honored at the Rocky

24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE-

Case 3:12-cv-05088-RJB Dccument

32

Filed S3120112 Page 6 of 10

I
2
J

Butte facility." Dkt. 22, at 13. She alleges that costs from a trial in which she was "fully acquitted" have never been paid and so caused the "sale fail" on the Washington property. Dkt.
22, at 13. Her proposed amended complaint further states that "Obamacare is an example of the continuance of the globalists' financial agenda to destroy any and all rights' of the American

4
5

6
7
B

individual via the ultimate eminent domain of our health." Dkt.22, at 15. She then alleges that
the Departrnent of the Treasury, the Sociat Security Administration, and the Internal Revenue Service are "not transparent" and o'more likely than not Kelly has filed hundreds of filings in the

9
10

court system to protect our individ ual Bundle of Rights.:' Dkt. 22, at 16 (emphasis in original).

Plaintiff seeks, against each of the Defendants, a "declaratory judgment," an "order for
Quiet Title," damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Dkt. 22.

l1

t2

D. ORGANIZATION OF OPINION
This opinion will first address Plaintiff s motion for leave to amend her Complianl (Dkt.22)
and next examine her original Complaint to determine whether it meets the requirerments of Fed.

l3
14

t5

R. Civ. P. 8 and whether this is the proper venue for Plaintiff s case. This opinion
address whether her remaining motions (Dkts.

willthen

l6
t7
18

24,25,27,29, and 3l) should be renoted.

DISCUSSION

il.

A. MOTION TO AMEND AND ORIGINAL COMPLAINT CLAIMS FOR RELIEF?

Under Fed. R. Civ. P.

l9
20

l5(a)(2),"a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing

party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so factors are taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to

2l requires." "Five
22 23

amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party,

futility of amendment,

and

whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint. Futility alone can justify the denial

24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE- 6

Case 3:12-cv-05088-RJB Document

32

Filed G3/201'12 Page 7 of 1*

I
2
J

of a motion to amend." Johnson v. Buckley,356 F.3d 1067, L077 (9th Cir. 2}}4)(internal
quotations and citations omitted). Further, FederalRule of CivilProcedure 8(a)(2) provides that a pleading must contain a

4
5

"short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12 (bX6), a complaint may be dismissed for "failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted." Dismissal of a complaint may be based on either the lack of a cognizable legal

6
7
8

theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri Pacifica Police Department,90l
F

v.

.2d 696,699 (9th

Cir. 1990).

l.

Proposed Amended Complaint

l0
1t
12

Plaintiff s motion to amend her complaint (Dkt. 22) should be denied. As the above
discussion of the proposed amended complaint demonstrates, Plaintiff s proposed amend

complaint is full of disjointed allegations, many of which are frivolous and without merit.
has

l3 Moreover, it does not appear that this Court

jurisdiction over many of the parlies and

l4 properties,

some of which are located in Oregon. Further, Plaintiff fails to allege suificient facts

l5 to support any kind of cognizable legal theory. Plaintiff makes no showing that amendment
16

would not be futile. Johnson, at 1077. Her motion to amend her complaint should be denied.

t7

2.

Original Complaint
She

l8
t9
20

Plaintiff s original Complaint does not apper to meet the requirements of Rule 8(aX2).
has not articulated

"a short and plain statement" of a claim showing that she is entitled to relief.
27

In the interest of due process, on or before March

cause,

,2012, Plaintiff should be ordered to show

2l
22
LJ

if any

she has, why this Complaint should not be dismissed. Defendants' response,

if

any,

should be filed on or before March 29, 2012, and the matter noted for consideration on March

30,2012.

24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE-

Case 3:12-cv-050$8-RJB Document

32

Filed 03i10/12 Page 8

*f

10

I
2

Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1391 (eXl),

A civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity or under color of legal

States

J 4
5

authority, or an agency of the United States, or the United States, may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought in any judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantialpart of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.

Additionally, it is unclear, based on the allegations in the original Complaint whether this
7

is the proper venue for this case. Accordingly, on or before March 27,2012, Plaintiff should be
8

ordered to show cause,

9

if any she has, why this case should not be dismissed for being brought in if any, should
be filed on or before March 29,2012,

the improper venue. Defendants' response,

l0
and the matter noted for consideration on March 30,2012.

1l

B. OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

12

Consideration of Plaintiff other pleadings, including a "Request for Reasonable

t3 Accommodation" (Dkt.24), "Motion Request for Reasonable Accommodation, Amended" (Dkt.

t4
25), "Mction United States Constitution fBundle of Rights]
15

Bill of Rights, I through X. State of

Washington Constitution, Move Roberta Kelly, Ian Wilson, Ryan Wilson from the Superior
16

Court in the State of Washington for Cowlitz County to the United States District Court Western

t7
District of Washington at Tacoma" (Dkt.27), "Rule 53.3 Appointment of Masters in Discovery
18

Matters Exhibit and Grievance against aLawyer, Complaint and Geithner Exhibit" (Dkt. 29),
19

and a hand written letter requesting that the Court notify U.S. Attorney Jenny 20

A. Durkan that

Plaintiff is at her Washington address and does not have power or water (Dkt. 31) should be

2t
renoted forMarch 30,2012. Some of the issues they raise are similarto issues already before the
22

Couft on that day.

ZJ

C. NOTICE
24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE-

Case 3:12-cv-05088-RJB Document

32

Filed A3l2*112 Page 0 of 10

I
2

This Court has taken judicial notice of the pre-filing order issued in U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon. Plaintiff should be aware that

if

she chooses to continue to

file cases and

J 4
5

motions that arefrivolous and without merit, she could be subject to sanctions, such as fines
and/or dismissal of her case, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

il.
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that:

ORDER

7
8

. .

Plaintiff s Motion to Amend Complaint (Dkt.22) IS DENIED.

On or before March 27,2012, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, any she has, why her Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state
a

if

t0
11

claim and for improper venue. Defendants' response, if any, shall be filed on or
before

March 29,2012,

and the matter noted for consideration on

March 30,

t2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7

2012.

Plaintiffs other pleadings, including

a "Request

for Reasonable Accommodation"

(Dkt. 24), "Motion Request for Reasonable Accorr'rnodation, Amended" (Dkt.

25), "Motion United States Constitution [Bundle of Rights] Bill of Rights, I through X, State of Washington Constitution, Move Roberta Kelly, Ian Wilson,
Ryan Wilson from the Superior Court in the State of Washington for Cowlitz

l8
t9
20
21

County to the United States District Courl Western District of Washington at Tacoma" (Dkt.27), "Rule 53.3 Appointment of Masters in Discovery Matters

Exhibit and Grievance against a Lawyer, Complaint and Geithner Exhibit" (Dkt.
29), and a hand written letter requesting that the Court notify U.S. Attorney Jenny

22
23

A. Durkan that Plaintiff is at her Washington address and does not have power or
water (Dkt.

3l) ARE R"ENOTED for March 30,20L2.

24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE- 9

Case 3:12-cv-05088-RJB Document

32

Filed G3120112 Page 10 of 10

I
2
3

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and

to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address.

Dated this 20th day of March,2012.

4
5

6
7
8

ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge

l0
l1
12

l3
14

l5
t6
t7

l8
19

20
2L

22
ZJ

24

ORDERTO SHOW CAUSE. IO

WAWD CM/ECF Version 4.2

Page 1 of2

Orders on Motions
3:'12-cv-05088-RJB Kellv v. JPMorqan Chase & Co. et al

LAW CLERK

U.S. District Court

United States District Court for the Western District of Washington

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on3l20l20l2 at Il:24 Case Kelly v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al Case 3: l2-cv-0508&.RJts

Name: Number:

AM PDT

and filed on 312012012

Filer:
Document Number:32 Docket Text: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, denying [22] Motion to Amend. On or before March 27,2A12, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, if any she has, why her Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim and for improper venue. All other motions are renoted to 3/30112" Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan.(JL)

3:12-cv-05088-RJB Notice has been electronically mailed to: Michael J McMahon mjm13@ettermcmahon.com
C Marie Eckert marie.eckerl@millernash.com, jeannie.peurasaari@millernash.com
Teresa Hilkey Pearson teresa.pearson@millernash.com, brenda.hale@millernash.com,
lisa. conrad@millernash. com

Jeff D Brecht j effb@sussmanshank. com

Rebecca Shapiro Cohen (Terminated) rebecca.cohen@usdoj.gov, ECF-Civ.USAWAW@usdoj.gov,

amy.hanson@usdoj.gov, shannon .connery@usdoj.gov, sharon.gore@usdoj.gov, tracy.ung@usdoj.gov

William G Fig billf@sussmanshank.com, karen@sussmanshank.com

Jennifer C. Underwood jennifer@ettermcmahon.com, bcorsaro@ettermcmahon.com

Daniel Allen Womac daniel.womac@fnf.com. nancy.hunt@fnf.com, shbien.cross(@fnf.com

Rebecca Shrader bshrader@bwmlegal.com, kspading@bwmlegal.com

3:12-cv-05088-RJB Notice will not be electronically mailed to:

Roberta Kelly

https ://ecf.wawd. circ9. dcn/c gi-bin/Dispatch.pI? 43 02407 247 833 8

0312012012

WAWD CM/ECF Version 4.2

Page2 of2

200 Coyote Lane Castle Rock, WA 98611 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

Document description: Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: et: 4 | 86 424 -0 [s TAMP dcecfStamp ID: I 03 5 9 292] I lD ate:3 I 20 I 20 121 [FileNumb l[S9b87ef0l4a437babic06d9fdfd0f7b0b75a979862lBab0dea38t8e4fb9e503724 d93a098c097 4969d3e3e7207 la5l d6a4369bbel 57 e339d3f7 c89e17 5b97 Icll

https ://ecf.wawd. circg.d cnl cgt-bin/Dispatch.pl? 4302407 247 8338

0312012012