Harihar v. United States of America

Filing 14

Judge Denise J. Casper: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered denying 9 Motion to render related orders/judgments void; granting 12 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. In accordance with the Memorandum and Order dated August 11, 2017, and the Plaintiff not having shown good cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state claim, it is ORDERED that the within action be and it is hereby DISMISSED. (PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
__________________________________________
)
MOHAN A. HARIHAR,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
Civil Action No. 17-11109-DJC
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CASPER, J.

September 29, 2017

Plaintiff Mohan A. Harihar initiated this action on June 14, 2017, by filing a fee-waiver
application and a complaint naming the United States as defendant. D. 1, 4. Plaintiff seeks to hold
the United States liable for alleged judicial misconduct by a judge in a related matter.
On August 11, 2017, plaintiff’s fee-waiver application was denied as incomplete and he
was advised that his complaint is subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. D. 10. The Court denied without
prejudice plaintiff’s motions for counsel and for permission to file on ECF. Id. at 6.
The August 11, 2017 Memorandum and Order stated that the claims asserted by Plaintiff
are not ones for which sovereign immunity has been waived. Id. at 4. To the extent plaintiff seeks
to bring a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, he was advised that this court with without
jurisdiction because he has not yet exhausted his administrative remedies. Id. at 4 – 5. Plaintiff
was advised that the criminal statutes for racketeering and obstruction of justice do not provide
him with a private right of action. Id. at 6. Finally, he was advised that there no tort liability that

can be premised on a judge’s rulings in a case over which the judge had jurisdiction. Id. at 5.
Plaintiff was granted additional time to file a renewed fee-waiver application and to show cause
why his complaint should not be dismissed. Id. at 6.
On September 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a show cause response with a renewed fee-waiver
application. D. 12, 13. Now pending is Plaintiff’s motion seeking to have the undersigned “render
ALL RELATED ORDERS and/or JUDGMENTS as VOID, Pursuant to FRCP 60, following the
sua sponte RECUSAL here of Judge Allison Dale Burroughs.” D. 9.
Upon review of the Plaintiff’s renewed fee-waiver application, the Court concludes that he
is without income or assets to pay the $400.00 filing fee. His application is therefore granted.
Plaintiff’s show cause response, in sum, outlines his disagreement with the Court’s
Memorandum and Order and reiterates the allegations in his original complaint. As to Plaintiff’s
failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, he argues that he should have court appointed
counsel and that he should be deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies because he
has not yet received a denial letter. Plaintiff states that he has contacted his representatives in the
United States Congress and that he has filed judicial misconduct complaints against eight
additional federal judges. Plaintiff also states in the first paragraph of his show cause response
that “[i]f left uncorrected, it will (at minimum) show cause for the Plaintiff to bring a tenth (10th)
judicial misconduct complaint against [the undersigned] officer of the Court acting on behalf of
the United States.” D. 13 at 1.
After reviewing Plaintiff’s response, the Court concludes that he has failed to demonstrate
cause why this action should not be dismissed. Moreover, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s suggestion
that an adverse ruling implies participation in a conspiracy. D. 13 at 2 – 3; 6 – 7. “Litigants are

2

understandably disappointed when they do not prevail in court, but that does not give them the
license to attack the integrity of the judiciary.” In re Mann, 229 F.3d 657, 659 (7th Cir. 2000).
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby Ordered that:
1)

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, D. 12, is GRANTED;

2)

The motion to render related orders/judgments void, D. 9, is DENIED; and

3)

In accordance with the Memorandum and Order dated August 11, 2017, and the
Plaintiff not having shown good cause why this case should not be dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state claim, it is ORDERED
that the within action be and it is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Denise J. Casper
Denise J. Casper
United States District Judge

3