STATE OF FLORIDA et al v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al

Filing 70

ORDER - Pro se litigant Gary P. Salamone's 69 Motion to Correct Obvious Error in Court Record. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE ROGER VINSON on 8/10/2010. **Copy of Order mailed to pro se litigant Gary P. Salomone. (laj)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION STATE OF FLORIDA, by and through Bill McCollum, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants. ____________________________________/ ORDER This litigation involves a challenge to the federal health care law. On April 23, 2010, I entered an order denying several motions to intervene in the case, including one filed by Gary P. Salamone, pro se. Purportedly in an effort to "spar[e] the court embarrassment," Salamone has now filed a document entitled "Motion to Correct Obvious Error in Court Record" (doc. 69), in which he asks that I correct a "glaring error" in the record. Specifically, he maintains that although his objection to the health care law is based partly on the Commerce Clause, it is based primarily on the Equal Protection Clause and the principle that tax money must be used for a public purpose, "not for government health-benefits programs that serve only the private health needs of some."1 He suggests that my prior order did not accurately Case No.: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT

In his earlier motion to intervene, Salamone stated that he "has no problem with the states invoking the Commerce Clause" to challenge the health care law and, in fact, he "join[ed] the other parties" in advancing the argument. He went on to state, however, that the challenge should not be limited "to a single provision of the [Constitution]," and the remainder of his argument was that the health care law also violated Equal Protection and ran afoul of the tax principle indicated above.

1

Page 2 of 2

describe the true nature of his challenge. He requests that this "error" be corrected in the record and, moreover, that I "issue a civil summons to both the lead plaintiff and lead defendant in this case ordering them to defend no later than September 6, 2010." To be clear, in my prior order, I explained that "Salamone objects to the Act on the ground that it violates the Commerce Clause, inter alia." "Inter alia" means "among other things." His motion (doc. 69) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2010.

/s/ Roger Vinson
ROGER VINSON Senior United States District Judge

Case No.: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT