HOFFENBERG v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 12

OPINION FILED. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 1/24/13. (js)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
STEVEN JUDE HOFFENBERG,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 12-7026 (JBS)

OPINION

This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s motion
titled, “Motion in extraordinary manifest constitutional error .
. . whereby dockets 8 and 9 orders are void in the court’s
miscarriage of justice, by not deciding docket 7 the mandated
final motion in this action.”

[Docket Item 10.]

The background of this and other Plaintiff’s matters was
already detailed in this Court’s prior decision. [Docket Item 5.]
As relevant here, on October 12, 2012, Plaintiff commenced
this action in the District of Columbia.

[Docket Item 1.]

The

District of Columbia directed transfer of Plaintiff’s action to
this District.

[Docket Item 3.]

This Court examined Plaintiff’s

pleading and directed administrative termination on the grounds
of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the limited order of
preclusion entered against him.

[Docket Item 5.]

Plaintiff was

informed that his compliance with the terms of that order would
result in reopening of the instant matter.

[See id. at 4.]

In response, Plaintiff moved for reinstantement of this
action to the District of Columbia’s active docket.
6.]

The Court denied that motion.

[Docket Item

[Docket Items 8 and 9.]

By the time the Clerk entered said denial, Plaintiff filed
another motion, titled “Motion in the courts extraordinary
manifest constitutional error in the court having no jurisdiction
and no venue . . . making the order docket 5 void, defective,
vacated, in well settled law,” asserting that he was not
obligated to comply with the limited order of preclusion.
[Docket Item 7.]

He also maintained that the instant action

(raising Federal Tort Claims Act challenges) should be deemed
substantively different from his prior action, where this Court
dismissed his Federal Tort Claims Act challenges, and the Court
of Appeals affirmed.
[Docket Item 10.]

[See id.]

The motion at bar followed.

Here, Plaintiff asserted that the Court

violated his rights by not ruling on his above-detailed motion
within the three week period that took place between docketing of
that motion and his execution of the motion at bar.

[See id.]

Plaintiff’s motion docketed as Docket Item 7 will be denied.
Plaintiff is obligated to comply with the limited order of
preclusion entered against him in Hoffenberg v. Grondolsky, Civil
Action No. 09-4784 (RMB) (D.N.J.).1

1

Pursuant to that order,

Judge Bumb provided Plaintiff with a notice as to the
terms of the intended order and, upon considering his response,
found entry a limited order of preclusion warranted. See
2

Plaintiff must submit a one-page single-sided application seeking
leave to file a pleading in every non-emergent, non-habeas civil
action where he is proceeding in forma pauperis.
he submitted a 117-page pleading.

See id.

[Docket Item 1.]

Here,

Since this

matter was commenced in forma pauperis and raised no emergent
non-habeas claims, he must file the requisite application
summarizing his claims clearly and concisely.2
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion, Docket Item 7, will be
denied.

Plaintiff’s instant motion, Docket Item 10, will be

dismissed as moot.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Dated:

January 24, 2013

Hoffenberg v. Grondolsky, Civil Action No. 09-4784 (RMB)
(D.N.J.), Docket Items 84 and 90.
2

To the extent Plaintiff is concerned that his instant
Federal Tort Claims Act challenges are barred by res judicata
(because of this Court’s adjudication of his prior Federal Tort
Claims Act challenges, and the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of
this Court’s determinations), the Court already pointed out to
Plaintiff that it did not reach the res judicata issue. [See
Docket Item 8, at 2.] In the event Plaintiff files the requisite
application summarizing his instant claims, this Court will
analyze Plaintiff’s instant claims against those adjudicated in
his prior Federal Tort Claims Act action and will determine
whether this matter is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
3