Walsh II v. The English Monarchy et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 9/29/16. (sar)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JOHN R. WALSH, II, Plaintiff, Civ. No. 16-502-LPS v. THE ENGLISH MONARCHY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM I. BACKGROUND On July 13, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff's request to proceed in jo171Ja pauperis. (See D.I. 6) Plaintiff moves for reconsideration on the grounds that other courts have granted him in jo171Ja pattperis status. (D.I. 8) II. LEGAL STANDARDS The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seqfood Cqfe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). A motion for reconsideration is the "functional equivalent" of a motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). See Jones v. Pittsburgh Nat'/ Corp., 899 F.2d 1350, 1352 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing f<ederal Kemper Ins. Co. v. Rauscher, 807 P.2d 345, 348 (3d Cir. 1986)). "A proper Rule 59(e) motion ... must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995). 1 III. DISCUSSION The Court denied Plaintiff in jo17lla paupens status on the grounds of the amount of his annual income. The Court has again reviewed Plaintiffs application to proceed in jo17lla pauperis and the instant motion, and finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any grounds to warrant reconsideration of the Court's July 13, 2016 Order. In addition, a federal court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) when the allegations within the complaint "are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, ... wholly insubstantial, ... obviously frivolous, ... plainly unsubstantial, ... or no longer open to discussion." Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Degrazja v. Federal Bureau qflnvestigation, 316 F. App'x 172 (3d Cir. Mar. 12, 2009) (claims that meet Hagan standard properly dismissed sua sponte pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1)). The Court has reviewed the complaint and finds it allegations that seek the net worth of the named parties for their alleged "crimes against humanity" are devoid of merit. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Court will: (1) deny Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (D.I. 6); and (2) dismiss the complaint. Amendment is futile. See Grqyson v. Mqyview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 2002); Borelli v. City qfReading, 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d. Cir. 1976). A separate Order will be entered. Dated' September~~ 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?