Raimondo v. Hood et al

Filing 74

ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. 67 , is denied. Signed on 8/16/2018 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Dickinson, Gregory)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
JOSEPH RAIMONDO,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. DISTRICT CHIEF JUDGE
DENISE PAIGE HOOD, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:17-04254-CV-C-NKL

ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Request for Reconsideration, Doc. 67.

Mr.

Raimondo seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Orders dismissing claims against the Defendants
Village of Armada, Macomb County, Ben Delecke, James Meyerand, Thomas Meyers, and Lt.
Lynn Baumgarten’s, Doc. 57, the Capac State Bank, Doc. 58, and the Democratic National
Committee, Doc. 59. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Request for Reconsideration is denied.
I.

Background1
This lawsuit is based primarily on events that occurred over twenty years ago in Armada,

Michigan. On April 6, 1998, law enforcement officers from the Macomb County Sherriff’s
Department, Clinton Township, and the Village of Armada conducted a raid on Plaintiff Joseph
Raimondo’s property to investigate allegations that he was operating an illegal “chop shop.”
Although the officers obtained a warrant, Plaintiff alleges that the officers violated the warrant,

1
The facts are found in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Doc. 6, as well as court documents from
several related proceedings. The Court takes judicial notice of those documents for purposes of the motion
to dismiss. See Nixon v. Couer D‘Alene Tribe, 164 F.3d 1102, 1107 (8th Cir. 1999) (“[M]aterials that are
part of the public record or do not contradict the complaint may be considered by a court in deciding a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.”).

and unlawfully seized private property. Plaintiff also alleges that the officers prosecuted Plaintiff
for a purpose other than bringing an offender to justice, and then retaliated against him when he
sought relief.
On April 6, 2001, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, seeking damages related to the allegedly unlawful search and seizure.2 The
Village of Armada, Macomb County, Ben Delecke, and Lt. Lynn Baumgarten were each named
as defendants in the lawsuit. On March 5, 2002, Plaintiff filed a second lawsuit in the same district,
against, among others, the Village of Armada, Macomb County, Ben Delecke, and Lt. Lynn
Baumgarten.3 The two cases were consolidated, and on September 30, 2003, the district court
granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. See Doc. 11-1 (2003 Memorandum
Opinion and Order).
On November 2, 2004, Plaintiff filed another lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan against many of the same defendants as before, as well as against
the individual attorneys who were involved in the defense of the prior cases, James Meyerand and
Thomas Meyers.4 Just as before, Plaintiff’s lawsuit was based on the allegedly unlawful April
1998 search and seizure. Doc. 11-2 (2004 Complaint). Plaintiff raised claims such as “civil
conspiracy to obstruct justice,” “civil conspiracy to thwart due process,” and “civil conspiracy to
interfere and deprive first amendment rights.” Id. On June 30, 2006, the district court entered
judgment in favor of all defendants and against Plaintiff, and dismissed the case. See Doc. 11-3
(2006 Memorandum Order and Opinion).

2
Joseph Raimondo, et al. v The Village of Armada, et al., Case No. 01-CV-71353-DT (E.D. Mich.
2001).
3
Joseph Raimondo, et al. v The Village of Armada, et al., Case No. 02-CV-71696-DT (E.D. Mich.
2002).
4
Joseph Raimondo v. Thomas F. Myers, et al., Case No. 04-CV-74287-DT (E.D. Mich. 2004).
2

On November 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed another lawsuit against, among others, the Village
of Armada, Macomb County, Ben Delecke, Lt. Lynn Baumgarten, James Meyerand, and Thomas
Meyers. See Doc. 11-4 (2013 Complaint).5 Once again, Plaintiff alleged constitutional violations
arising out of the April 1998 search and seizure.

Id. On February 6, 2014, the district court

entered an order and judgment dismissing the case on the basis of res judicata. Doc. 11-5 (2014
Order of Dismissal). The Sixth Circuit subsequently affirmed. Doc. 11-6 (2015 Sixth Circuit
Order).
Now, Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit based on the same events, against many of the same
defendants, and asserting the same or similar claims. The named defendants are United States
District Judges Denise Page Hood, Lawrence Paul Zatkoff, George Caram Steeh, and John Corbett
O’Meara, the Democratic National Committee, the Internal Revenue Service, Commissioner John
Koskinen, U.S. Tax Court Judge Carolyn P. Chiechi, Macomb County, Michigan, Lt. Lynn
Baumgarten, James Meyerand, the Village of Armada, Michigan, Ben Delecke, Thomas Meyers,
and Capac State Bank. While he does not direct any particular count at any particular Defendant,
Plaintiff raises the following eleven claims:












Count 1: Conspiracy via Obstruction of Justice by Covering-up a Violated
Search and Seizure Warrant
Count 2: Conspiracy via Denying 1st Amendment Rights to Petition For
Redress
Count 3: Conspiracy via Denying 4th Amendment Due Process.
Count 4: Conspiracy via Denying 5th Amendment Due Process Clause.
Count 5: Conspiracy via Depriving 14th Amendment Due Process.
Count 6: Conspiracy via Denying Equal and Fair Treatment of Law.
Count 7: Conspiracy via Fraud upon the Court.
Count 8: Conspiracy via engaging in Social Justice Policies
Count 9: Conspiracy via Taxation without Federal Representation.
Count 10: Conspiracy via Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
Count 11: Conspiracy via Engaging in Hate Crimes.

5
Joseph Raimondo v. Village of Armada, et al., Case No. 13-CV-14773 (E.D. Mich. 2013).
3

After careful consideration, this Court granted the Motions to Dismiss which were filed by
the Defendants Village of Armada, Macomb County, Ben Delecke, James Meyerand, Thomas
Meyers, and Lt. Lynn Baumgarten’s, Doc. 57, the Capac State Bank, Doc. 58, and the Democratic
National Committee, Doc. 59. Mr. Raimondo now asks the Court to reconsider those rulings.
II.

Discussion
A district court has broad discretion to determine whether to grant motions to reconsider.

In re Levaquin Products Liab. Litig., 739 F.3d 401, 404 (8th Cir. 2014); Innovative Home Health
Care, Inc. v. P.T.–O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998). However,
a motion to reconsider generally “serve[s] a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or
fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Arnold v. Sec. Servs., Inc., 627 F.3d 716, 721 (8th
Cir. 2010). A motion to reconsider “cannot be used to raise arguments which could have been
raised prior to the issuance of judgment.” Hagerman v. Yukon energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414
(8th Cir. 1988).
First, while Mr. Raimondo asks the Court to reconsider its order dismissing his Complaint
against the Democratic National Committee, Doc. 59, he does not explain any basis for
reconsidering that ruling. Further, the Court has reviewed that Order of dismissal and is confident
there is no basis for reconsidering its ruling.
Second, as for the Court’s orders dismissing the claims against the Capac State Bank, Doc.
58, and the claims against the Defendants Village of Armada, Macomb County, Ben Delecke,
James Meyerand, Thomas Meyers, and Lt. Lynn Baumgarten’s, Doc. 57, Mr. Raimondo argues
that res judicata does not apply because there was an ongoing constitutional violation and because
fraud was committed against the courts which have previously ruled against him. But both of these
arguments were either explicitly argued in opposition to the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss or

4

could have been made before the Court granted the Motions to Dismiss, Docs. 57 and 58. As
stated above, a motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to reargue a point previously made or
to argue a new point that could have been made prior to the Court’s ruling. For these reasons
alone, Mr. Raimondo’s Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Further, Mr. Raimondo’s arguments fail on the merits. In support of his claim that there is
an ongoing constitutional violation that precludes res judicata, he has failed to allege an ongoing
violation. Instead he argues that his injuries from a prior constitutional violation are ongoing and
therefore res judicata does not apply. In contrast, Lawlor v. National Screen Services Corp., 349
U.S. 322 (1955), on which Mr. Raimondo relies, involved new but similar constitutional violations
that allegedly occurred after an earlier court judgment. Because Mr. Raimondo has only alleged
ongoing injury from an alleged constitutional violation that occurred two decades ago, res judicata
bars Mr. Raimondo’s claims addressed in this Court’s Orders of Dismissal, Docs. 57 and 58.
Mr. Raimondo also argues that the Court erred when it held that his Rule 60 Motion was
not the proper vehicle to remedy a fraud committed against another federal court. Again, his
arguments were either made in opposition to the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, or could have
been made before the Court’s Orders were entered. For this reason alone, his request is denied.
Further, on the merits, Rule 60(b)(3) authorizes only a motion for relief from a final
judgment, not an independent action. 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice
& Procedure: Civil § 2865 (3d ed. 2012) (“Relief under Rule 60(b) ordinarily is obtained by motion
in the court that rendered the judgment.”). Mr. Raimondo has not cited any authority that one
federal district court can vacate an order of another federal district court because of an alleged
fraud perpetrated on the sister court. Mr. Raimondo’s request for reconsideration on this issue is
without merit.

5

Mr. Raimondo makes several other statements in his Motion for Reconsideration that are
unrelated to the Court’s Orders of Dismissal, Docs. 57, 58, and 59, which are the Orders he seeks
to be reconsidered. To the extent he is seeking relief related to another issue, that relief is denied
because it has not been sufficiently identified and no persuasive legal authority has been provided
to support it.
III.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. 67, is

denied.
/s/ Nanette K. Laughrey
NANETTE K. LAUGHREY
United States District Judge
Dated: August 16, 2018
Jefferson City, Missouri

6