Walsh II v. The English Monarchy et al

Filing 9

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

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