Billy Gowans, Jr. v. Zachary Axom, et al.

Date: 10-10-2025

Case Number: 24-CV-06169

Judge: John M. Younge

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: Pro Se Plaintiff

Defendant's Attorney: Department of Justice

Description: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania pro se Plaintiff challenged reverse mortgage executed by his Mother.

In January 2025, Gowan filed an amended complaint in the District Court against defendants Zachary Axsom, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Compu-Link Corporation, and the First Mortgage Servicing Department (“Defendants”) alleging fraudulent inducement of a reverse mortgage taken out by his late mother. Gowan challenged the effects of this reverse mortgage and sought to enjoin Defendants from collecting on it and evicting him. The District Court granted Gowan’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, screened his first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and dismissed it without prejudice. In its memorandum opinion, the District Court explained that Gowan could not represent his late mother’s estate pro se and dismissed this claim without prejudice to its being reasserted through counsel. As for claims Gowan sought to bring on his own behalf, the District Court concluded his assertions were too vague and dismissed the claims without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The District Court granted Gowan the opportunity to file a second amended complaint so he could explain the “who, what, where, when, and why” of his claims. The District Court’s order detailed the information Gowan needed to provide. The District Court also stressed that a second amended complaint had to stand on its own and could not rely on outside documents or exhibits to establish any claims raised therein.

Gowan then filed a second amended complaint, which was significantly less detailed than the first. He made vague references to “the property” but did not even provide its address. Gowan alleged that Defendant Axsom was harassing him by calling frequently, asking Gowan whether he still lived at the property, and threatening to change the locks. Gowan also claimed someone was having contractors visit the property on a monthly basis to take pictures of the door locks. Gowan’s only requested relief was that the alleged violations stop.

Outcome: The District Court screened Gowan’s second amended
complaint and dismissed it with prejudice for failing to comply with Rule 8, concluding that amendment would be futile.

Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: