Ronald G. Bellamy and Regina Bellamy v. 1 Public Homes, LLC and Michael Moody

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee grants Ronald and Regina Bellamy leave to proceed in forma pauperis but dismisses their pro se complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court alternatively concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), because merely citing the Truth in Lending Act rescission regulation does not establish a federal claim and the alleged transaction is exempt from rescission. The court certifies that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and directs the Clerk to enter judgment.

Holdings

1. The plaintiffs' joint IFP application was granted because their financial disclosures showed that they could not pay the $405 filing fee without undue hardship.
2. The complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction merely by citing 12 C.F.R. § 1026.23 because it alleged no facts supporting a federal rescission claim.
3. Diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because the complaint involved Tennessee plaintiffs and Tennessee-resident defendants, and the complaint did not establish complete diversity.
4. Even if the court had jurisdiction and the complaint had expressly sought rescission, the claim would be subject to dismissal because the regulatory right of rescission did not apply to the alleged residential mortgage transaction and the complaint did not allege facts supporting rescission.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint established federal-question jurisdiction by citing 12 C.F.R. § 1026.23's right of rescission.
2. Whether diversity jurisdiction existed where the plaintiffs and defendants were Tennessee residents.
3. Whether the complaint stated a viable claim for rescission or other relief under the Truth in Lending Act and its implementing regulation.
4. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.

Disposition

dismissed