Summary
This is a Decision and Order from the District Court of Guam addressing a pro se plaintiff’s civil rights complaint alleging violations of due process, equal protection, and conspiracy regarding a disputed property deed. The court granted the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis but screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Finding several causes of action legally insufficient or not recognized as standalone claims, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend for the first four counts and without leave to amend for the remaining two. The motion for a temporary restraining order was denied as moot due to the dismissal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff sufficiently alleged a constitutionally protected property interest and a procedural due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Whether plaintiff stated a substantive due process claim based on the alleged loss of property.
- Whether plaintiff stated a class-of-one equal protection claim.
- Whether plaintiff stated a claim for conspiracy to interfere with civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
- Whether fraud on the court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3), and declaratory or injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 and Ex parte Young, are independent causes of action.
Holdings
- A plaintiff may proceed without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) when the plaintiff submits an affidavit sufficiently establishing inability to pay. Plaintiff's compliant application satisfied that requirement.
- A procedural due process claim requires a plausible allegation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, and plaintiff failed to plausibly allege such an interest in the subject property.
- The complaint failed to state a substantive due process claim based on the alleged loss of property because it did not allege a legally sufficient substantive due process right or a taking for public use.
- A class-of-one equal protection claim requires allegations that the plaintiff was intentionally treated differently from similarly situated persons without a rational basis, and plaintiff's allegations did not plausibly connect defendants' conduct to the alleged denial of an opportunity to litigate.
- A § 1985(3) claim requires a conspiracy, an act in furtherance, resulting injury, and an invidiously discriminatory motivation directed at a racial group or other protected class; plaintiff failed to allege membership in or discrimination against a protected class.
- Rule 60(d)(3) does not create an independent cause of action; it provides a mechanism by which a court may set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.
- The Declaratory Judgment Act and Ex parte Young do not create independent causes of action; they describe available relief or an exception to sovereign immunity.
Key quotations
“A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, along with “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”” (at 5)
“The plaintiff must show that the defendant intentionally treated them “differently than other similarly situated” people “without a rational basis.”” (at 8)
“This is a power of the court and not a valid cause of action.” (at 9)
“Again, these are not valid causes of action.” (at 9-10)
Factual background
Plaintiff alleged that defendants fraudulently transferred property in Sinajana, Guam, through a deed of gift while his father was gravely ill, and that government employees, a notary, an attorney, and family members participated in or facilitated the alleged misconduct. Plaintiff claimed an interest in the property based on his alleged status as an heir and long-term occupant, although he also alleged that his father held no ownership interest in the property. Plaintiff further alleged that he was not served or allowed to present evidence in prior property and unlawful-detainer proceedings, resulting in his eviction in 2021.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed the complaint and related motions on September 17, 2025. After the court denied an initial fee-waiver application for failure to submit the required affidavit, plaintiff filed a compliant application on September 22, 2025. The court granted the application, screened the complaint, and dismissed it in its entirety, allowing thirty days to amend the first four causes of action.
Remand instructions
No remand. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty days of service of the order. Failure to comply may result in dismissal with prejudice without further notice.