PONSOR, District Judge.
This action is brought, pro se, by the executor and heirs of the estate of Joseph Francis Noone IV against the Town of Palmer; the Massachusetts Land Court; Charles T. Blanchard, the Town Manager of Palmer; Palmer Tax Assessors Beverly Morin-Lizak, Lawrence M. Jasak, Michael H. Burns, and Paul Nowicki; Deborah J. Patterson, the Recorder of the Massachusetts Land Court; and Peter A. Brown, an attorney who represented the Town of Palmer during the land court proceedings.
The case arises out of a tax title foreclosure proceeding in Massachusetts Land Court, in which Plaintiffs argued that because the decedent held a "land patent" on his property, no taxes were due. While the proceeding was pending, Plaintiffs purported to "remove" the case to this court. On March 22, 2013, the land court entered judgment in the tax lien action in favor of the Town of Palmer.
After some preliminary proceedings in this court, all Defendants filed motions to dismiss. These motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman for a report and recommendation. On February 3, 2014, Judge Neiman issued his recommendation to the effect that all the motions should be allowed. Timely objections from Plaintiffs followed.
Judge Neiman's careful work makes extended discussion of the issues raised by the motions to dismiss unnecessary. The fact is that this is precisely the kind of case that 28 U.S.C. § 1341 was designed to forestall. The principle of comity between federal courts and state governments embodied in section 1341 bars a federal court from entertaining actions for damages or
Many people are unhappy at being taxed. The rule is therefore straightforward: challenges to state or local tax systems must proceed through state court. Here, as Judge Neiman found, the state court mechanism for challenging the tax was perfectly adequate, and Plaintiffs were free to pursue their appeal of the land court's decision through the normal state court appellate process. (R&R at 9-10, Dkt. No. 47.)
In addition to the statutory bar under section 1341, it is clear that the land court's decision has preclusive effect on any complaint filed in this court. Because the section 1341 bar is so clear, and the preclusive impact of the land court ruling so manifest, the court need not evaluate Defendants' assertion that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
For the foregoing reasons, upon de novo, review this court hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Neiman (Dkt. No. 47). The motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 23, 27, 43, 44, and 45) are hereby ALLOWED. The clerk will enter judgment for Defendants. This case may now be closed.
It is so ordered.
NEIMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
Proceeding pro se, Joseph Francis Noone IV, as executor of the estate of Joseph Francis Noone III ("Spud Noone"), and Joseph Charles Noone, Dustin Michael Noone and Christopher Patrick Noone, as heirs of Spud Noone (together, "Plaintiffs"), bring this action, which arises out of a tax title foreclosure in Massachusetts Land Court. Named as defendants are the Town of Palmer; the Massachusetts Land Court; Charles T. Blanchard, the Town Manager of Palmer; Beverly Morin-Lizak, Lawrence M. Jasak, Michael H. Burns, and Paul Nowicki, Palmer Tax Assessors; Deborah J. Patterson, the Recorder of the Massachusetts Land Court; and Peter A. Brown, an attorney with D'Ambrosio Brown, LLP, who represented the Town of Palmer during the Land Court proceedings.
Plaintiffs' claims stem from their assertion that Spud Noone held a "land patent" to his property. As a result, according to Plaintiffs, no municipal real estate taxes were due on the property and the Massachusetts Land Court lacked jurisdiction over the tax title foreclosure case. In particular, Plaintiffs assert the following claims in their second amended complaint: "conspiracy against rights to property as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. § 1985" against all Defendants (Counts 1 through 9); "conspiracy to commit an act of extortion as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. § 1985" against all Defendants (Counts 10 through 18); "treason against the U.S. Constitution as contemplated by 18 U.S.C. § 2381" against Patterson (Count 19); "breach of trust as a public official" against Blanchard, Moriz-Lizak, Burns, Nowicki, Patterson, and Brown (Counts 20 through 25); "violation of civil rights as contemplated by M.G.L. ch. 268, § 37" against all Defendants (Counts 26 through 34); "attempted extortion as contemplated by M.G.L. ch. 265, § 25" against all Defendants (Counts 35 through 43); "constructive fraud and larceny
Defendants have filed motions to dismiss, which have been referred to this court for a Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). For the following reasons, the court will recommend that Defendants' motions be granted
The following facts come from Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, which also refers to attachments to their first amended complaint. Accordingly, certain facts derive from both documents. See Trans-Spec Truck Service, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., 524 F.3d. 315, 321 (1st Cir.2008) ("When . . . a complaint's factual allegations are expressly linked to—and admittedly dependent upon—a document (the authenticity of which is not challenged) that document effectively merges into the pleadings and the trial court can review it in deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).") (quoting Beddall v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 137 F.3d 12, 16-17 (1st Cir. 1998)); Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1993) (courts may also consider "official public records" at the motion to dismiss stage). The facts and all reasonable inferences are stated in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs as the parties opposing dismissal. Young v. Lepone, 305 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2002).
In 1983, Spud Noone acquired, through a conveyance from his parents, a tract of land in Palmer. (Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("Compl.") ¶¶ 1, 10, 12.) This same tract, Plaintiffs assert, can be traced to an "English Crown Grant from the King of Great Britain" to Thomas Little in 1733. (Id. ¶ 3.) "Through an unbroken chain of title over a period of time," the tract "eventually became the private property of one Elaine B. Stillwell," who conveyed it to Spud Noone's parents in 1970. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.) Spud Noone's deed to the property, Plaintiffs continue, "was recorded almost nine months after the grant of land to [him], without his knowledge and consent, and not within the customary 60-day period." (Id. ¶ 13.) The recorded deed "served as the basis for tax assessment" of the tract. (Id. ¶ 16.) The English Crown Grant, however, constitutes a contract, or a "land patent," which makes the property "immune from taxation." (Id. ¶¶ 22-23, 31, 33.)
On July 19, 2011, the Town of Palmer, through Paul Nowicki, executed a tax taking of Spud Noone's property for failing to pay real estate taxes for fiscal year 1989. (Exhibit P (attached to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint ("Amend Compl.")).) See generally MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 60, §§ 53 and 54. On February 2, 2012, the Town of Palmer instituted a tax lien action against Spud Noone in the Massachusetts Land Court, seeking to foreclose all rights of redemption to the property. (Exhibits Q and T (attached to Amend Compl.).) See generally MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 60, § 65. During the ensuing proceedings before the Land Court, Spud Noone, who filed a Notice
On November 29, 2012, Spud Noone filed with the Land Court a "Notice of Removal to the United States District Court." (Compl. ¶ 58.) That same day, he filed a complaint in this court seeking various injunctions. (Doc. No. 1.) On January 26, 2013, Spud Noone passed away. (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiffs thereafter filed a Notice of Suggestion of Death and a motion for an extension of time to amend the complaint, substitute a party, and serve the defendants. (Doc. Nos. 7 and 8.) On March 18, 2013, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion and ordered them to file an amended complaint and to serve defendants by April 26, 2013. (Electronic Order No. 9.) Meanwhile, on March 22, 2013, the Massachusetts Land Court entered a judgment in the tax lien action in favor of the Town of Palmer. (Compl. ¶ 71; Exhibit N (attached to Amend Compl.).)
On April 26, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in this action seeking, among other requests, an order from the court requiring Defendants to "explain" certain actions and compensatory and punitive damages. (Doc. No. 10.) On May 17, 2013, the Town of Palmer, Nowicki, Morin-Lizak, Blanchard, Jasak, and Burns ("Town Defendants"), as well as Brown, filed motions to dismiss, whereas Patterson and the Massachusetts Land Court ("Commonwealth Defendants") filed an assented-to motion for a more definite statement. (Doc. Nos. 23, 26, 27.) After this court granted the Commonwealth Defendants' motion for a more definite statement (Electronic Order No. 41), Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint seeking compensatory and punitive damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. (Doc. No. 42.) The Town Defendants and Brown renewed their motions to dismiss, and the Commonwealth Defendants filed their own motion to dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 43, 44, 45.)
When faced with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994); Coyne v. City of Somerville, 972 F.2d 440, 443 (1st Cir. 1992).
Defendants seek dismissal of this action on a number of grounds. Both the Commonwealth Defendants and the Town Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' second amended complaint fails to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, that Plaintiffs lack standing, and that res judicata bars the action. The Commonwealth Defendants also argue that the action is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, that Eleventh Amendment state sovereign immunity bars the claims against the Land Court and Patterson in her official capacity, that Patterson is absolutely immune from liability in her individual capacity, and that, as to the remaining claims, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In addition, the Town Defendants argue that 28 U.S.C. § 1341 bars the action and that the claims against Morin-Lizak should be dismissed because she never received service of process. Brown, for his part, "joins and adopts" the Town Defendants' arguments and, in addition, argues that he is protected by an absolute privilege from any liability arising out of statements made during the course of the Land Court litigation.
The court will first address the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and standing, because they represent possible jurisdictional infirmities, before concluding that the action should be dismissed on comity and issue preclusion grounds. Alternatively, the court will also recommend dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Commonwealth Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' second amended complaint essentially asks this court to review the validity of the Land Court judgment and that, as such, it is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Although Plaintiffs failed to oppose the Commonwealth Defendants' motion, and this failure in and of itself provides sufficient grounds for dismissal, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine implicates a district court's subject matter jurisdiction, Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 439 n.*, 127 S.Ct. 1194, 167 L.Ed.2d 29 (2007), and could, if applicable, dispose of the case in its entirety. Moreover, federal courts generally must decide subject matter jurisdiction issues as a threshold matter, even if not directly raised by the parties. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) (directing federal courts to first decide whether subject matter jurisdiction exists before addressing the merits); Spooner v. EEN, Inc., 644 F.3d 62, 67 (1st Cir.2011) ("A court is duty-bound to notice, and act upon, defects in its subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.").
At first glance, it would appear that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars this action. The doctrine provides that federal district courts have "no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings" because "[r]eview of such judgments may only be had in [the United
In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005), however, the Supreme Court limited the reach of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court, proceedings commenced, and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." Id. at 283, 125 S.Ct. 1517 (emphasis added). The Court explicitly held that, if the federal action commenced prior to the state-court judgment, Rooker-Feldman does "not emerge to vanquish jurisdiction" after the state-court judgment issues. Id. at 294, 125 S.Ct. 1517; see also id. at 292, 125 S.Ct. 1517 ("When there is parallel state and federal litigation, Rooker-Feldman is not triggered simply by the entry of judgment in state court. . . . [N]either Rooker nor Feldman supports the notion that properly invoked concurrent jurisdiction vanishes if a state court reaches judgment on the same or related question while the case remains sub judice in federal court.") (internal citations omitted)). Here, Spud Noone commenced this action on November 29, 2012, and the Land Court did not enter its judgment until March 22, 2013.
Arguably, though, Rooker-Feldman may still apply because the second amended complaint, which is the operative complaint at this time, was filed after the Land Court judgment and constitutes a facial attack on that judgment. Were that interpretation of the law to hold sway, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine would likely bar this matter from proceeding any further against Defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The court, however, need not answer the Rooker-Feldman question as a threshold matter because other issues are clearly dispositive, as discussed below. Indeed, the First Circuit recognizes an exception to Steel Co.'s strict "order of operations" rule when "prior case law `foreordains' the outcome on the merits, so as to deny recovery." Seale v. I.N.S., 323 F.3d 150, 157 (1st Cir.2003); see also Chun Xin Chi v. Holder, 606 F.3d 6, 9 (1st Cir.2010) ("Given that courts can bypass a close jurisdictional question if the merits ruling is
Defendants assert that Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue the instant action because they failed to provide evidence that Joseph Francis Noone IV is the executor of Spud Noone's estate and that the other plaintiffs are heirs. Accordingly, Defendants contend that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting for lack of standing. The court is not entirely persuaded.
First, while Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs have not provided evidence to substantiate their interest in the controversy, they have alleged that Joseph Francis Noone IV is the executor of Spud Noone's estate and that the other plaintiffs are his heirs. Defendants fail to cite any authority which stands for the proposition that Plaintiffs must prove, rather than merely allege, such interest. See, e.g., Pomeroy v. Ashburnham Westminister Reg'l School Dist., 410 F.Supp.2d 7, 9 (D.Mass.2006).
Second, to the extent the Town Defendants argue that only Joseph Francis Noone IV as executor may maintain this action, the court concludes that this question is more properly viewed as an issue of capacity rather than Article III standing. See Hill v. Martinez, 87 F.Supp.2d 1115, 1122-23 (D.Colo. 2000). Clearly, as Spud Noone's heirs, Joseph Charles Noone, Dustin Michael Noone and Christopher Patrick Noone have the requisite "personal stake in the outcome of the controversy" for standing purposes. McInnis-Misenor v. Maine Medical Center, 319 F.3d 63, 67-68 (1st Cir.2003) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975)). For purposes of Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b), however, only Joseph Francis Noone IV has the capacity to represent Spud Noone's estate in this action. See, e.g., Nordberg v. Town of Charlton, 2012 WL 2990763, at *3 (D.Mass. July 19, 2012). But that is not an issue of subject matter jurisdiction.
Third, to the extent the Town Defendants also argue that none of the claims survived the death of Spud Noone, the court rejects that assertion as well, at least as to the section 1985 claims. See Pomeroy, 410 F.Supp.2d at 12-14 (holding that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a), a § 1983
The Town Defendants argue that because, at bottom, Plaintiffs challenge the validity of the real estate taxes imposed on Spud Noone's property and collected through the tax title action, this action should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1341. That statute provides that "[t]he district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State."
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, relying on the same "fundamental principle of comity between federal courts and state governments" reflected in section 1341 and prior case law, has held that federal courts may not entertain section 1983 damages actions or render declaratory judgments which depend on challenges to the validity of state tax systems. See Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass'n. v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100, 103, 116, 102 S.Ct. 177, 70 L.Ed.2d 271 (1981); Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U.S. 293, 299, 63 S.Ct. 1070, 87 L.Ed. 1407 (1943). Rather, the Supreme Court explained, "[s]uch taxpayers must seek protection of their federal rights by state remedies, provided of course that those remedies are plain, adequate, and complete, and may ultimately seek review of the state decisions in [the Supreme Court]."
Here, all of Plaintiffs' claims depend on a determination that the imposition and enforcement of the real estate tax
Accordingly, the court concludes that this action is barred based on the principles of comity expressed in Fair Assessment and reflected in section 1341.
The court also concludes that the instant action is barred on issue preclusion grounds. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1738, the Full Faith and Credit Act, federal courts must "give the same preclusive effect to a state-court judgement as another court of the State would give." Exxon Mobil Corp., 544 U.S. at 293, 125 S.Ct. 1517 (quoting Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank, 474 U.S. 518, 523, 106 S.Ct. 768, 88 L.Ed.2d 877 (1986)). Accordingly, this court must look to Massachusetts law in determining whether issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel, applies. "Issue preclusion prevents the relitigation of an issue determined in an earlier action when that issue subsequently arises in another action based on a different claim between the same parties or their privies." Jarosz v. Palmer, 436 Mass. 526, 766 N.E.2d 482, 487 n.3 (2002). Under Massachusetts law, issue preclusion applies if
Kobrin v. Bd. of Registration of Medicine, 444 Mass. 837, 832 N.E.2d 628, 634 (2005)
These requirements have been met here. In the tax lien action, the Massachusetts Land Court entered a final judgment foreclosing all rights of redemption. (Exhibit N (attached to Amend Compl.).) It is unclear whether Plaintiffs appealed that judgment, but, even if they have, the Supreme Judicial Court has held that a lower court judgment is considered final for issue preclusion purposes while it is on appeal. O'Brien v. Hanover Ins. Co., 427 Mass. 194, 692 N.E.2d 39, 44 (1998). Moreover, Plaintiffs are clearly in privity with Spud Noone. The same "land patent" argument which forms the basis of all of Plaintiffs' claims in this action was raised by Spud Noone on multiple occasions in the Land Court, albeit rejected. (Exhibits J, Q, R, and S (attached to Amend Compl.).) If anything, that issue was essential to the Land Court judgment because, if it had found that Spud Noone's argument constituted a valid defense, it could not have entered judgment in favor of the Town of Palmer.
Accordingly, the court also recommends that this action be dismissed because of issue preclusion.
As an alternative basis for dismissal, and so as to provide a more complete report and recommendation, the court concludes as well that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Briefly, Plaintiffs, with respect to their section 1985 claims, have failed to sufficiently allege facts which indicate that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy; neither have they alleged "a class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus." See Knowlton v. Shaw, 704 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2013); Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1996). Moreover, 18 U.S.C. § 2381; M.G.L. c. 265, § 25; M.G.L. ch. 266, § 20; and M.G.L. c. 268, § 37 are all criminal statutes which do not provide a private right of action.
For the reasons stated, the court recommends that Defendants' motions to dismiss be ALLOWED.
