| Uy. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK eee ee ee ee ee ee xX ANTHONY W. HALL, Plaintiff, : -against- ; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FRENKEL, LAMBERT, WEISS, WEISMAN 19-CV-7322 (ENV) & GORDON LLP, STEPHEN J. WALLACE; SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC. CEO : TIMOTHY O’BRIEN; WELLS FARGO N.A. : CEO CHARLES W. SCHARF; JUDGE MARK I. : PARTNOW; NANCY T. SUNSHINE, : Defendants. : el ee a ee ee fe ete eet ee tt x VITALIANO, D.J. Plaintiff Anthony Hall brings this action invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction under

, challenging the foreclosure of his real property located in Brooklyn.' Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis under

is granted solely for the purpose of this Order. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is dismissed. Standard of Review Under

(e)(2)(B), a district court must dismiss an in forma pauperis action when the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”

' The Court notes that plaintiff has had multiple actions in this Court as Anthony Hall, Anthony W. Hall and Anthony Winston Hal! that have all been dismissed. See Hall v. Frenkel, Lambert, No. 20-CV-107 (ENV); Hall v. Shellpoint Mortgage, No. 19-CV-1807 (ENV); Hall v. Cooper, No. 19-CV-1684 (ENV); Hall v. Select Portfolio, No. 19-CV-1683 (ENV); Hall v. Specialized Loan, No. 19-CV-1518 (ENV); Hall v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 16-CV-4264 (ENV); Hall v. United States, No. 16-CV-2073 (MKB); Hall v. The Bank of New York Mellon, No. 15-CV- 7156 (MKB); Hall v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 13-CV-5550 (ENV).

Althporusogpe hl eaardeih ne"gltsdlo es stsr isntgaennthdtaafo nrr dmspa lle adings drabftyle adw yHeurgshv,Re."os w 4e4,U9 . 5S9,.1, 0 S1.C t1.7 137,65 6L, . E d2.d1 63 (1 98a0c )o,m pmluasniten vte rptlhee"aledne osfauscg tthsos t aac tleat irome lthiaietsf plauosnii tfabscl eeB. e"Al tll aCnotripTc.w ovm5.b5 l0y ,U .S. S5.C4 t41.,9 515597,70 3,, 127

16L7.E d2.d9 2(92 00A7p )rs.ope laimnutsaitl"ff ss otc iolmlp ltyh rewe ilther vualonefts proceadnsudur baslt laaniwtn,ic vleeus dtianbgtl hitashctheo i uhnragsts u bmjaetctte r jurisodvitechrate ci toinAo lnvlS..yu" k ka1r2F,8A. pp1'9x14 9,(5 2 Cdi 2r0.0 I5sf)u .b ject matjtuerri sidasib cstteihndoetin ,s c torumiructsdt ti smtihcseos m prleagiarnodttfl hemese sr its otfh uen deralcytiSineoNgeno .w val.kr onwLoorck6aPe ler nss Fiuon8nd1F , 3. d 1 18121,8 8 (2Cdi 1r9.9 s6e)ae;l A srob avuY.g& hH C or5p4.U6,. 5S0.50 1,14 2,S6 C. t 1.2 3152,41 46,3 L.Ed2.d1 09(72 006). Background ,PlacihnatliltffehN neog veesm8 b2,e0 r1j 8u,d gomffoe rnetc loofhs iruserp aerl o perty loca6t5eM2da caSottrn e Berto,o NkelYwyo nr,ik Kn,i nCgosu Snutpyr CeomueSr etCe.o mpl.

a2t4 3,32 P.laianltliteffhgd aeetsfe ndeanngtaisgfrn ea dua dns de etkhrsee turno fth per operty. Ida.1t 2 -15. Discussion Fedecoruaarlrct eos u orlfti sm jiutreids adnimdca nyto ihtoe nca arsi tefhs le ayc k submjaetcjttue rri sodvitechrite si sopunre ess eSnitnvegU..dhS . C. i tizaenIndms mhiigrpa tion Ser8v7sF8.. ,43 4d41 4,(52 Cdi 2r0.1 D7o)ve;U. n iSttead8t 3eF3s. ,13 9d12 9,(6 2 Cdi 2r0.1 6). Thset atpurtoovrifoysrf i eodnsesur bamjlae tcjttue rri sadrcieoc nttiiao2nin8 Un .eSd. C.

2T hCeo urrte ftetorh psea nguem baesrssib gytn hceeod u Ertl'esc tCraosFneii l(ci" nEgC F") system. §§1 33a1n1 d3 3F2e.d qeureasljt uiroinsp driocvfetidideoecrnsoa uljr utrsi sodvi"ecartl ilon ciavcitlai roinussni dnteghCr eo nstiltauwotstri,r oenoa,ftt hiUeen siS tteadt Geasl.lv"e. g o NorthGlrIapnn.8cd 1. F4,. 132d13 2,(6 2 Cdi 2r0.1 (6q)uo2t8Ui .nSg§.1 C3.3 A1p )l.a intiff propienrvlosyke ec1st3 i3jo1urn i sdwihcehtnepi loenaac dosl ocrlaa"bialmre i usnidtnehgre "

Constoirlt auowttfsi h oUenn iStteadIt deU.sn .dd eirv ersityf ejdcureoirusahrdlati vsce t ion, submjaetctte r jusrtilasatdcweil catwiihmoestnr hp eelo avieanrndt dei feffn ardeano tdf i verse citizaen"ndts mhhaeitt pie cnro ntreoxvceethreessd yuso m rv alouf7e$5 ,000,o fe xclusi intaenrcdeo sst2t 8sU .."S§ .1 C3.3 2s(eaael) Bs;ao y erLiasncdheeNs Y.bB arnak,vn .c h AladCdaipnMi gtmaLtlL. C6 ,9F 2. 432d4, 8( 2Cdi 2r0.1 2). Lacokfs ubmjaetcjttue rri scdanincboteti ownaa inmvdae byder aiasaten tdyi mea by parotbryy t hceo usrustap onSteHeee. n deerxrs eHolen.n devrS.sh oinn5 s6eU2k. i4S,2. 8 , 43143,S1 C. t 1.1 9172,01 27L,9E. d 2.d1 5(92 0(1"1[)F ]ceoduerrtaasnil n hdaevpee ndent oblitgeoan tsituohrntae ht de ony o etx ctehesedc ooptfeh jeuirri sanddit chteirthoeenfoy,r e musrtaa insddee cjiudrei sdqiucetstithoitanohptaneart ls i eeist ohveerro lerol onekoct tto

presIsaf.c "o)urtl. a cskusbm jaetcjttue rri sidmtiu csdttii sotmniha,sec s t FieoRdn.C.. i Pv.. 12(hA)r(b3a)5u;4gU 6h. ,aS 5t.1 (42 0D0u6r)a;Nn itc,hH oolussH,to odng,&s C oonr tese­ CosPt.avC,D.. u po5n6Ft5., 53 6d6, 2 -(32C di 2r0.0 9). Thej urisdiincqtsuioiourtnnyhda desle aktnhefo lrHl a llla'wssS uuictc.it nhCceot ulryt, lacskusbm jaetcjttue rri sudnid2ce8Utr .i So§.n1 C 3.3a 1is,i tw s e slelt tthljaeutdd gmoefn ts foreclaroefus nudramee nmtaatltlseytr lasat wSeo.e fe e .,Wg o.r,t hyvD-.eP uutgBshac nhke NatiTornu6as6lFt4 A., p p2'02x,1 ( 2Cdi Orc.1t 8.2, 0 1(6s)u momradr(eydar i )s ctoruirctt lacjkusr istdioin cvtaialfoo irnde actljeou sdugrmVeeo nsts)bv;rA. ic nccrkeH doimLteee ndd ers, In7c7.F3,. 432d43 2,(62 Cdi 2r0.1 s4e)ae;l H suon vgH. u rwNiot1.z7 ,- CV-24011W47L0 , 3769223 at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2017). Plaintiff also cannot invoke subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to

, as complete diversity of citizenship is lacking. Conclusion In line with this analysis, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Further, in keeping with its duty to liberally construe pro se complaints, the Court has considered whether to grant leave to amend the complaint, but finds that amendment would be futile. See Johnson v. Univ. of Rochester Med. Cir.,

, 124-25 (2d Cir. 2011). Separately, plaintiff is cautioned that this Court will not tolerate frivolous litigation and a litigant has a history of filing vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits, courts may impose sanctions, including restrictions on future access to the judicial system.” Hong Mai Sa v. Doe,

(2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court certifies pursuant to

(a)(3) that any in forma pauperis appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. Coppedge v. United States,

, 444- 45,

,

(1962). So Ordered.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York January 6, 2020 s/ Eric N. Vitaliano ~ ERICN. VITALIANO. United States District Judge