United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
QUINTON M. HAMILTON
Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., Chief District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BARBARA D. HOLMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Order entered May 31, 2019 (Docket Entry No. 6), the Court
referred this pro se action to the Magistrate Judge
for pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§
636(b)(1)(A) and (B), Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Court.
pending is the motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 7) filed
by Defendant Ally Financial, Inc., to which Plaintiff has not
filed a response. For the reasons set out below, the
undersigned Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that the
motion to dismiss be granted and that this action be
M. Hamilton (“Plaintiff”) is a resident of
Nashville, Tennessee. On April 3, 2019, he filed this pro
se lawsuit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County,
Tennessee, against Ally Financial, Inc.
(“Defendant” or “Ally Financial”). On
May 28, 2019, Defendant removed the lawsuit to this Court on
the basis of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1131 and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1332. See Docket Entry No. 1.
pleading in the Chancery Court is a seven-page filing styled
as “Affidavit of Truth for Breach of Contract, Theft by
Deception, Copyright Infringement, Violation of Security
Agreement.” See Affidavit of Truth (Docket
Entry No. 1-2) at 2-10. Accompanying the filing are four
exhibits, consisting of 70 pages of documents. Id.
at 11-80. As gleaned from the statement of facts contained in
Plaintiff's pleading and from his exhibits, it appears
that Plaintiff purchased a 2017 Volkswagen Jetta by obtaining
a loan from Defendant. He sent Defendant a packet of
documents in July 2018 for the purpose of paying off the
account in full. See Docket Entry No. 1-2 at 5.
However, the “payment” sent by Plaintiff
consisted of what he termed as a “non-negotiable
instrument” for $21, 453.09 to be redeemed on his
“treasury exemption account” with the United
States Department of the Treasury. Id. at 5, 11-13,
and 15-26. Although Plaintiff alleges that the instrument was
accepted and his loan account was closed, he nonetheless
alleges that the packet and instrument were returned to him
by Defendant with a notice of dishonor. Id. at 6.
Plaintiff further alleges that the vehicle was then reported
to the police as stolen from his residence on or about
October 11, 2018. Id. He asserts that he was
informed by GEICO that Defendant claimed to have repossessed
the vehicle and to have sold it in November 2018.
claims that Defendant: (1) violated several state and federal
statutes by refusing to honor the payoff documents that he
mailed; (2) violated a security agreement that he has filed;
(3) violated “common copyright;” and, (4)
violated his “human rights” by refusing to honor
his payoff attempt, by reopening his “account”
and reporting credit information, and by repossessing the
vehicle. Id. at 6-7. He seeks “to be awarded
for unjust enrichment, copyright infringement, violating
Security Agreement, emotional stress, lost job, car,
relationship with child and continuously destroying
Affiant's credit report.” Id. at 7.
Although the pleading itself does not make a specific request
for relief, a page from the exhibits contains an
“invoice” to Defendant for the amount of $6, 300,
00.00 for “Copyright Infringement of Quinton M.
Hamilton, Violation of recorded Security Agreement, Breach of
Contract, Violation of Human Rights, Loss of Job, Lost Home,
Emotional Stress, Discrimination, Lost Property, Unjust
Enrichment, and Theft By Deception.” Id. at
MOTION TO DISMISS
of an answer, Defendant seeks dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for two primary
reasons. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's
Affidavit of Truth fails to satisfy the basic pleading
requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure because Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts
that support any legally cognizable cause of action. Second,
Defendant argues that Plaintiff's allegations amount to
an admission that he has engaged in a debt relief scam known
as the “redemption theory, ” which has been
summarily rejected by the courts as a frivolous attempt to
avoid repayment of debt. See Memorandum in Support
(Docket Entry No. 8).
Order entered June 11, 2019 (Docket Entry No. 9), Plaintiff
was notified of the motion and given a deadline of July 22,
2019, to file a response. Plaintiff was specifically advised
that his failure to timely file a response may result in a
Recommendation that his lawsuit be dismissed in whole or in
part. To-date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the
motion, and the docket shows no filings by Plaintiff in the
case since it was removed to this Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires a complaint to
contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). To be facially
plausible, a claim must contain sufficient facts for the
court “to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In its review of a Rule
12(b)(6) motion, the Court must accept as true all of the
well-pleaded allegations contained in the complaint, resolve
all doubts in a plaintiff's favor, and construe the
complaint liberally in favor of a pro se plaintiff.
See Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2006);
Boswell v. Mayer, 169 F.3d 384, 387 (6th Cir. 1999).
Although the Court is required to liberally construe pro
se pleadings, this does not require the Court to apply a
more lenient application of the substantive law, see
Bennett v. Batchik, 1991 WL 110385 at *6 (6th Cir. 1991)
(citing Wolfel v. United States, 711 F.2d 66, 67
(6th Cir. 1983)), and a complaint filed by a pro se
plaintiff must still plead sufficiently specific factual
allegations, not just legal conclusions, in support of each
claim. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-679.
a court typically cannot consider “matters outside of
the pleadings” when deciding a motion to dismiss,
Weiner v. Klais & Co., Inc., 108 F.3d 86, 89
(6th Cir. 1997), copies of documents attached as exhibits to
the a pleading are “part of the pleadings for all
purposes.” Rule 10(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Additionally, exhibits to a defendant's motion
may be considered if they are referred to in the complaint
and are ...