WIDI v. MCNEIL et al
ORDER denying 400 Motion for Reconsideration of ECF No. 392; denying 400 Motion for Leave to File an Interlocutory Appeal. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
DAVID J. WIDI, JR.,
PAUL MCNEIL, et al.,
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ECF NO. 392 OR
LEAVE TO FILE AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
The Court denies David J. Widi, Jr.’s third motion to reconsider its Screening
On February 11, 2015, the Court issued a forty-seven page screening order in
which it granted David J. Widi, Jr.’s motion for leave to amend his complaint as to
certain counts and denied it as to others. Screening Order, Order Vacating in Part
Earlier Order Den. Mot. for Leave to File Second Am. Compl. as to Served Defs., Order
Granting in Part Mot. to File Second Am. Compl., Order Striking Portions of the
Second Am. Compl., and Order Den. Mot. to Stay (ECF No. 270) (Screening Order).
On May 4, 2015, Mr. Widi filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its screening
order. Mot. for Recons. (ECF No. 292) (First Recons. Mot.). On December 8, 2015, the
Court issued a twenty-five page order denying Mr. Widi’s motion for reconsideration
of its screening order, and requiring Mr. Widi to present some documentary evidence
supporting his allegations. Order on Mot. for Recons. and Mot. Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60 (ECF No. 325) (First Recons. Order).
On March 24, 2016, Mr. Widi filed another motion for the Court to reconsider
its order denying his motion to reconsider its screening order. Resp. to Order on Mot.
for Recons. and Mot. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60 with Accompanying
Documentary Evid. and Mot. for Disc. (ECF No. 351) (Second Mot. for Recons.). On
January 10, 2017, the Court issued a thirty-three page order, granting the motion in
part and denying it in part. Order on Mot. for Recons. (ECF No. 392) (Second Recons.
On January 23, 2017, Mr. Widi filed a third motion to reconsider and, in the
alternative, a motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal. Mot. for Recons. of ECF
No. 392 or Leave to File an Interlocutory Appeal (ECF No. 400) (Third Mot. for
Recons.). On February 7, 2017, Defendant Paul McNeil filed his opposition to Mr.
Widi’s third motion for reconsideration. McNeil’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Recons. of
ECF No. 392 or Leave to File an Interlocutory Appeal (ECF No. 409). On February
11, 2017, Defendants Kevin Cady and Robert Brown filed an objection to Mr. Widi’s
third motion for reconsideration. Defs. Kevin Cady and Robert Brown’s Obj. to Pl.’s
Mot. for Recons. of ECF No. 392 or Leave to File an Interlocutory Appeal (ECF No.
412). On March 3, 2017, Mr. Widi filed a reply to Defendant McNeil’s opposition to
his motion for reconsideration. Pl.’s Reply to McNeil’s Opp’n to Mot. for Recons. of
ECF No. 392 or Leave to File Interlocutory Appeal (ECF No. 415) (Widi McNeil Reply).
On May 16, 2017, Mr. Widi moved to enlarge the time to reply to Defendants
Cady and Brown’s opposition to his motion for reconsideration, asking that the
response time be extended to June 1, 2017. Second Mot. to Enlarge Time to File Resp.
to ECF #403 and ECF #412 (ECF No. 439). The Court granted the motion to enlarge
time on May 17, 2017 (ECF No. 440). The Court received Mr. Widi’s reply, dated
June 1, 2017, on June 5, 2017. Reply to Defs. Cady and Brown’s Obj. to Mot. for
Recons. of ECF No. 392 or Leave to File Interlocutory Appeal (ECF No. 450) (Widi
Even though the Court credits Mr. Widi for being inordinately persistent, the
Court declines to alter its February 11, 2015, December 8, 2015, and January 10,
2017 Orders. Mr. Widi filed his original Complaint on June 13, 2012, Compl. (ECF
No. 1), now making it the second oldest civil action pending before this Judge. The
Court has done its best in making its repeated rulings. On December 8, 2015, the
Court wrote that “there has to be a point in civil litigation where the disappointed
party accepts—for the time being—the rulings of the trial court and pins his hopes
on the appellate court.” First Recons. Order at 9–10. What was true in December
2015 is all the more so in June 2017. Having written one hundred and five pages on
essentially the same subjects, the Court has explained itself to the point of exhaustive
repetition; nevertheless, the Court will briefly address Mr. Widi’s reiterated
The Neil Vaccaro Conspiracy Allegations
As regards Mr. Widi’s contentions about Agent Paul McNeil, Detective Kevin
Cady, and Officer Robert Brown, contrary to Mr. Widi’s assertion that the Court has
“patently misunderstood” him, Third Mot. for Recons. at 1; Widi Cady/Brown Reply
at 1, 5, the Court believes it understands Mr. Widi’s conspiracy allegations involving
Neil Vaccaro and the motorcycle in all their various permutations.
addressed Mr. Widi’s Vaccaro allegations in its February 11, 2015 Screening Order,
Screening Order at 12–13, 22–23, 39–40, in its First Reconsideration Order, First
Recons. Order at 19–21, and in its Second Reconsideration Order. Second Recons.
Order at 20–25.
The Court stands by its earlier conclusions that Mr. Widi’s conspiracy
allegations are “simply too fanciful to generate a federal cause of action,” Screening
Order at 39, that they spin a “strange and implausible tale,” First Recons. Order 19–
21, that “eight people, including seven police officers from three different agencies or
departments, engaged in a fairly elaborate conspiracy to frame him for a crime that
he did not commit,” id. at 21, that the existence of the conspiracy is based “on Mr.
Widi’s say-so alone,” id., that “these allegations [are] the type of frivolous and
malicious claims that Congress had in mind when it enacted [28 U.S.C.] § 1915A,”
id., and that “[n]one of Mr. Widi’s repeated contentions or suggested inferences
supports his grand conspiracy theory.” Second Recons. Order at 25.
The Revival of the Claims Against Paul McNeil
To respond to Mr. Widi’s assertion in his reply that the Court misunderstands
the law regarding whether a plaintiff may resurrect a dismissed claim during the
pendency of a civil action, the Court assures Mr. Widi that it understands that a
dismissed claim, including his claim against Agent McNeil, could legally be
resurrected. See Widi McNeil Reply at 1–2. Despite the fact Mr. Widi could legally
revive his claims against Agent McNeil, the Court declines to allow Mr. Widi to
resurrect claims because it has concluded that they are fundamentally nonmeritorious.
Citing 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), Mr. Widi urges the Court to authorize an
interlocutory appeal because he wishes to immediately press his unsuccessful
arguments at the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Third Mot. for Recons. at
8–9. To be clear, the Court does not at all agree with Mr. Widi’s mischaracterizations
of its rulings. See id. Furthermore, as Mr. Widi knows, “interlocutory appeals under
§ 1292(b) are ‘hen’s teeth rare’ and ‘require, among other things, leave of both the
trial and appellate courts.’” Widi v. United States Dep’t of Justice, No. 1:11-cv-00113JAW, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135517, *12 (D. Me. Nov. 23, 2011) (quoting Camacho v. P.R.
Ports Auth., 369 F.3d 570, 573 (1st Cir. 2004)). In In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel
Fire Litigation, the First Circuit wrote that interlocutory certification under 28
U.S.C. § 1292(b) “should be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances,
and where the proposed intermediate appeal presents one or more difficult and
pivotal questions of law not settled by controlling authority.” 859 F.2d 1007, 1010
n.1 (1st Cir. 1988). Having reviewed Mr. Widi’s repeated claims of error, the Court
rejects his request for interlocutory review because an interlocutory appeal will not
“materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
The Court DENIES David J. Widi, Jr.’s Motion for Reconsideration of ECF No.
392 or Leave to File an Interlocutory Appeal (ECF No. 400).
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 12th day of June, 2017
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?