Buckenberger v. Milazzo

Filing 10

ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that 6 MOTION to Set Aside is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 7 MOTION to Remand is DISMISSED as frivolous. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Christopher Buckenberger show cause in writing no later than M onday, 6/5/2017 why this matter should not be dismissed as frivolous and otherwise barred by judicial immunity. Failure to timely comply with this Order may lead to additional grounds for dismissal without further notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 5/24/2017.(ajn) .

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHRISTOPHER BUCKENBERGER

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 17-2862

JANE TRICHE MILAZZO

SECTION "B"(2)
ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court are two motions filed by pro se Plaintiff
Christopher Buckenberger. Rec. Docs. 6, 7. The first motion, titled
“Plaintiff’s (Due) Timely (Motion) to Set-Aside (Void):

USDC

Action 4/5/17 Doc 3,” appears to request that the Court set aside
the notice of directives filed by the Clerk of Court as Record
Document 3. The notice, filed by the Clerk pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(b), directs the removing party to file a list of the
remaining parties, copies of all state court pleadings, and copies
of the return on service of process filed in state court. Rec.
Doc. 3. The United States of America removed this matter from state
court and was therefore obligated to comply with the Clerk’s
directive. See Rec. Doc. 1. It timely complied on April 14, 2017.
Rec. Doc. 5. Plaintiff was not required, or expected, to respond
to the Clerk’s directive.
The second motion filed by Plaintiff appears to be a motion
to remand. Rec. Doc. 7. It is titled “Plaintiff/Complainant’s Due
Timely . . . Continued (O)bjections to . . . DOJ Complicit Removal
Action 4/4/17 . . . Continued from ‘Plaintiff’s Recent (E-Mail)

1

Submissions.” Id. at 1. While the title does not clearly indicate
the purpose of the motion, Plaintiff then requests relief in the
form of “dismissing” the removal and suggests that the appropriate
redress is remand. Id. at 1, 11.1 He does not, however, provide
any legal basis for remand. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to set aside (Rec. Doc. 6) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to remand (Rec. Doc. 7)
is DISMISSED as frivolous.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Christopher Buckenberger
show cause in writing no later than Monday, June 5, 2017 why this
matter should not be dismissed as frivolous and otherwise barred
by judicial immunity. Failure to timely comply with this Order may
lead to additional grounds for dismissal without further notice
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff is
also reminded that “pro se litigants, like all other parties, ‘must
abide by’ the rules that govern the federal courts.” Frazier v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 541 F. App’x 419, 421 (5th Cir. 2013)
(citing United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994)).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 24th day of May, 2017.

___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff asks the Court to remand Civil Action No. “16-9868” to state court;
this is the number assigned by the state court to his pleadings in the instant
action. See Rec. Doc. 5-1 at 1.
1

2