Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Rogers v. Mellman, 16-1832 (NLH/AMD). (2017)

Court: District Court, D. New Jersey Number: infdco20170717997 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jul. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 14, 2017
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER NOEL L. HILLMAN , District Judge . WHEREAS, on July 7, 2016, this Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint because Defendants were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, and because Plaintiff's complaint was duplicative of the action already pending before this Court and it was therefore an unnecessary drain on judicial and receivership resources (Docket No. 9, 10.); and WHEREAS, over six months later, Plaintiff filed a motion as a "precaut
More

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

WHEREAS, on July 7, 2016, this Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint because Defendants were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, and because Plaintiff's complaint was duplicative of the action already pending before this Court and it was therefore an unnecessary drain on judicial and receivership resources (Docket No. 9, 10.); and

WHEREAS, over six months later, Plaintiff filed a motion as a "precautionary measure," and styled it as a "Motion to File Notice of Appeal, and/or Motion to File Notice of Appeal As Within Time, and/or Objection to Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Entry of Final Judgment and/or Motion to File Objection to Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Entry of Final Judgment" (Docket No. 11 at 3); and

WHEREAS, it appears that Plaintiff's motion is also asking this Court to stay of all litigation against him, in this Court, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and in the New Jersey Superior Court "before it is too late; before my adversaries completely destroy me and my family" (Docket No. 11 at 9-10); and

WHEREAS, the Court first points out that Plaintiff's request regarding an appeal of this Court's July 7, 2016 Opinion dismissing his complaint does not comply with Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), (6); and

WHEREAS, for Plaintiff's requests regarding the entry of final judgment, no such judgment can be entered in this case since Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed; and

WHEREAS, for Plaintiff's request that the Court stay all litigation against him, the Court cannot entertain his request (1) because his case was dismissed, which extinguished this Court's jurisdiction over his case and any relief he sought through this action, and (2) because Plaintiff has not articulated any basis under the Federal Rules or case law that supports the availability of the relief requested in Plaintiff's motion;

Therefore,

IT IS on this 14th day of July, 2017

ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Motion to File Notice of Appeal, and/or Motion to File Notice of Appeal As Within Time, and/or Objection to Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Entry of Final Judgment and/or Motion to File Objection to Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Entry of Final Judgment" [11] be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer