916 F. 2d 714 - Willis v. First Bank National Association
916 F2d 714 Willis v. First Bank National Association
916 F.2d 714
Winston E. WILLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FIRST BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; John Bustemante; George
Forbes; Mable Jasper; Gerald E. Fuerst; Weltman, Weinberg
& Associates; Stephen Markus; Ulmer & Berne; Cleveland
Heights Police Department; John Doe, an unknown named
employee of the Office of the Clerk or the Office of the
Court Administrator of the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga
County; Jane Roe, an unknown named employee of the Office
of Clerk or the Office of the Court Administrator of the
Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County; James Doe, an
unknown named bailiff of the Cleveland Heights Municipal
Court, Defendants-Appellees.
Winston E. WILLIS; Winston E. Willis, in his capacity as
sole stockholder, officer and person in control of assets of
the Willis Companies; the Willis Companies; 10546 Euclid
Ave; University Circle Properties Development, Inc.;
Euclid Loan & Department Store; Big Daddy's Equipment
Company; New Orleans Restaurant; the Bedroom Lounge,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF CLEVELAND, The City of Cleveland and its chief
executive officer George Voinovich; Jack Kemp, United
States of America Department of Housing and Urban
Development; George Forbes, President of Cleveland City
Council; the City of Cleveland Law Department; Community
Development Agency of the City of Cleveland; Clarence
Gaines, Chief Judge, Housing Court of the City of Cleveland;
First Bank National Association, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 89-3834, 89-3838.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Oct. 15, 1990.
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Before MERRITT, Chief Judge; NATHANIEL R. JONES and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Advertisement
These cases have been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the briefs and records, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).
Winston Willis moves to disqualify opposing counsel on appeal from the dismissals of two civil rights actions filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Willis alleged in each complaint that defendants conspired to deprive him of property without due process. In one of the complaints, plaintiff also asserted a claim for relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4601, et seq. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss one of the complaints and dismissed the other sua sponte the same day. Upon consideration, we conclude that the dismissals were proper.
The constitutionality of the foreclosure action underlying plaintiff's claims was adjudicated in Willis v. First Bank Nat'l Ass'n, No. C86-3565 (N.D.Ohio July 19, 1988), aff'd, 878 F.2d 1437 (6th Cir.1989) (table), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 875 (1990). Therefore, plaintiff's renewed challenge to the foreclosure is barred under principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. See Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153-55 (1979); Duncan v. Peck, 752 F.2d 1135, 1138-39 (6th Cir.1985). Plaintiff's contention that he was wrongfully evicted from the property in question is merely an extension of the challenge to the foreclosure and is likewise barred. Also, plaintiff is not entitled to relocation assistance because he was displaced by the foreclosure and eviction, not under a federal program within the meaning of the Uniform Relocation Act. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4621.
Finally, we note that plaintiff's standing to assert opposing counsel's alleged conflict of interest is questionable at best, and the grounds asserted are wholly unsubstantiated. Cf. FDIC v. Amundson, 682 F.Supp. 981, 984-89 (D.Minn.1988).
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to disqualify counsel is denied. The judgments of the district court are affirmed. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.