USA v. Melick

Filing 33

ORDER: Petition, additional untitled paper with petition signed by Melick, and Proposed Order with cover page that says it is not to be filed are rejected and shall not be docketed. Clerk to return these documents to Melick, along with a copy of this order, to the return address provided on the mailing envelope. Copy of this order shall also be mailed to Melick at last address shown on the docket. So Ordered by Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. (dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America
v.

Civil No. 10-cv-308-JD

C. Gregory Melick
O R D E R
Charles Gregory Melick failed to obey an IRS summons issued
over a year ago.

He also failed to appear as ordered by the

court, and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest on February
15, 2011.

Most recently, Melick attempted to file in this case a

“Petition” signed by individuals who are not parties and who lack
standing to participate in this case, which the court rejected.
See Order, June 21, 2011.
In response to the court’s order issued on June 21, 2011,
Melick sent the same “Petition” with the same third-party
signatures back to the court.1

Melick included an additional

untitled paper with the “Petition” in which he states that he
read the “Petition” and that its contents are true and correct.
Melick also states that the “Petition” is not being presented for
an improper purpose and otherwise comports with the requirements

1

Along with the petition, Melick included a proposed order
with a cover page that says it is not to be filed.

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b).

Melick further states,

among other things, that he signed the untitled paper “under
Threat and Duress.”

Melick’s signature is acknowledged by a

notary public.
Once again, the “Petition” is rejected by the court.
Although Melick included the untitled paper with his signature in
his most recent mailing to the court, the “Petition” itself,
which is the same one previously presented to the court, is
signed by ten individuals who are not parties and lack standing
in this case.

In addition, the “Petition” purports to be “In

Support of Motion to Dismiss.”

No motion to dismiss was filed by

Melick with the “Petition,” nor is there any motion to dismiss
pending in this case.

Further, the “Petition” and the untitled

paper do not comport with the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 11 and Local Rules 5.1 and 7.1.
Melick, as a pro se party, can file motions on his own
behalf, but he cannot incorporate by reference and attempt to
file motions or other documents signed by individuals who are not
parties and lack any standing in this case.

2

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the “Petition,” the proposed
order, and the untitled paper sent with the “Petition” are
rejected as filings in this case and shall not be docketed.

The

clerk of court shall return those documents to Charles Gregory
Melick, along with a copy of this order, to the return address
provided on the mailing envelope.
A copy of this order also shall be mailed to Melick at the
last address shown on the docket.
SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
June 28, 2011
cc:

C. Gregory Melick, pro se
Gretchen Leah Witt, Esquire

3