ROGER v. MORRICE et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 10/16/2013. (TH, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

FRANCES ROGERS,

HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiffs,

Civil No. 12-7910 (JBS/KMW)

v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BRAD A. MORRICE, et al.,
Defendants.

SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Frances Rogers, representing herself and
proceeding in forma pauperis, brings this sprawling lawsuit,
which, at various iterations, has alleged more than 30 counts
against scores of defendants.1 In brief, Plaintiff alleges that
she and her late husband, Thomas Rogers, were victims of fraud
related to a foreclosure on their New Jersey residence. At
present, the Court is in the process of screening the Complaint,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which dictates that the
Court dismiss any claim filed in forma pauperis that is frivolous
or malicious, or fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. For the
reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed
in its entirety.

1

The facts of the case were summarized in Rogers v.
Morrice, No. 12-7910, 2013 WL 1750004, at *2 (D.N.J. Apr. 23,
2013) (“Rogers II”), and will not be repeated here.

1. On January 29, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s
petition to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter but ordered
Plaintiff to refile her Complaint in accordance with the “short
and plain statement” requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), because
Plaintiff’s original Complaint was more than 400 pages long,
inclusive of exhibits. [Docket Item 6 at 1-4.] At the same time,
the Court dismissed three counts (theft, manslaughter and “Aiding
and Abetting”) because those counts referenced parts of New
Jersey’s criminal code that did not provide for civil remedies.
[Id.] See Rogers v. Morrice, No. 12-7910, 2013 WL 356196 (D.N.J.
Jan. 29, 2013) (“Rogers I”).
2. Plaintiff refiled her Complaint [Docket Item 8], and
immediately brought a motion to amend [Docket Item 9]. Although
the Court had not completed its § 1915 screening of the
Complaint, and although the motion to amend was procedurally
unusual, the Court granted the motion to amend and continued to
screen that Amended Complaint. The Court carefully analyzed
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, which numbered more than 100 pages
and which was accompanied by nearly 300 individual exhibits
totaling more than 1,000 pages, and dismissed several claims that
lacked merit and terminated parties against whom Plaintiff failed
to state a claim. Rogers II, 2013 WL 1750004, at *1-*6. The
Court, for the second time, advised Plaintiff that she had not
complied with Rules 8(a) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

2

Procedure, noting that Plaintiff’s method of incorporating the
entirety of the Complaint in each individual count “makes it
difficult for the Court, and for potential Defendants, to
identify exactly what wrongdoing has been alleged against each
Defendant in a manner causing Plaintiff’s financial harm.” Id. at
*7. The Court dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice
and “offer[ed] to Plaintiff a final opportunity to file a Second
Amended Complaint consistent with this Opinion.” Id. The Court
recited the elements of RICO claims and conspiracy and advised
that any amended complaint must comply with Rule 8(a) and “must
include particular allegations of conduct constituting fraud for
each named Defendant, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and
discussed above.” Id. (emphasis in original). The Court warned
that “[f]ailure to amend the pleadings accordingly will result in
dismissal of claims with prejudice.” Id. (emphasis added).
3. Plaintiff twice requested additional time to clarify her
claims. [Docket Items 14 & 16.] The Court granted Plaintiff’s
first request in full and her second request in part, ultimately
granting Plaintiff two months in which to clarify her complaint.
[Docket Items 15 & 17.] The Court again warned that failure to
comply with the Court’s orders would result in dismissal of her
claims. [Id.]
4. Plaintiff eventually filed a Third Amended Complaint,
naming 44 Defendants, only 15 of whom had been named in the

3

original Complaint. [Docket Item 18.] The Third Amended Complaint
was longer than the previous Amended Complaint, at 133 pages, and
again contained extraneous general details about, and indictments
of, the mortgage industry. As before, Plaintiff filed a motion to
amend the Third Amended Complaint before the Court had screened
it. [Docket Item 19.] The proposed Fourth Amended Complaint2 was
longer still, at 192 pages, exclusive of exhibits, including
allegations that Defendants were holding her in “Debt Slavery” in
violation of her 13th Amendment Rights and that “Defendant’s
[sic] are engaging in Piracy Financial -- Paper Terrorism.”
[Docket Item 19 at 94-95.] Plaintiff pleads that she is
an external whistleblower and has endured terror,
psychological, emotional, mental, and psychological
trauma as a result of the Defendants’ use of fraud and
financial weapons of mass destruction to coerce the
Plaintiff, and similarly situated homeowners, to pay an
unlawful debt and illegally foreclose without the
original blue ink signature promissory and mortgage note
have been destroyed or lost, lacked the proper chains of
endorsement.
[Docket Item 19-1 at 4.] She also repeats the following paragraph
(or a nearly identical variation) in most of her 30 individual
counts:
The Defendants unlawful activity are dangerous to human
life and a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States, and the State of New Jersey, and appear to be
intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population,
and the U.S., the 50 States, and the District of Columbia
by intimidation or coercion, influencing the governments’

2

Plaintiff continues to label this the “3rd Amended
Complaint.”
4

policies, of which includes defrauding the U.S. taxpayers
of $700 Billion+ in the form of 2008’s TARP funds. The
Defendant’s use of the Mail and Wire are affecting
interstate commerce. The Defendant’s unlawful conduct
contributed to the death of Thomas Rogers, and is the
proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries of which
includes monies lost paying a fraud in factum 2006 ARM
agreement lacking the presumed lender -- mortgagee’s
consideration,
underlined
by
LIBOR
manipulation
throughout
2000-2010,
negatively
impacting
the
Plaintiff’s credit profile, subjecting the Plaintiff to
multiple claims, denying the Plaintiff’s ownership rights
pursuant to tenancy in entirety, destroying ion the
Plaintiff’s chain of title and its marketability,
maliciously prosecuting the Plaintiff using a fraudulent
and forged mortgage assignment bearing a fictitious
notary attestation and the Plaintiff and the late Thomas
Rogers personal identifying information, absent the 2006
promissory note with the proper chain of title
indorsements, in an attempt to deceive the Equity
Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey and Sheriff
into removing the Plaintiff, subjecting the Plaintiff to
usury in violation of her 1st Amendment rights, and
subjecting the Plaintiff to peonage -- debt slavery in
violation of her 13th Amendment rights.
(Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 338; see also id. ¶¶ 344, 351, 355, 360,
363, 366, 374, 376, 380, 382, 387, 396, 400, 403, 406, 409, 412,
417 & 427).
5. Plaintiff then filed a new wave of motions, including a
motion to further amend Count 1 and Count 7 of the Fourth Amended
Complaint [Docket Item 22], and a “Motion to Dismiss count fifthteen [sic]” and a “Motion for Reconsideration,” all of which are
procedurally inappropriate at this stage [Docket Item 21].
Plaintiff also filed a brief in support of a motion for recusal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 [Docket Item 23] and a brief in
support of a motion to change venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404

5

[Docket Item 24]. The Court reiterates that no Defendants have
been served at this point, and the Court has not directed the
Clerk of Court to file the Fourth (or Fifth) Amended Complaint,
as the Court has not completed its § 1915 screening of this
Complaint.
6. First, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s motion for
recusal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. [Docket Item 23.] A judge
must “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” and in such
instances where the judge has bias or prejudice concerning a
party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts, among
other reasons. § 455(a)-(b). Much of the motion, in substance, is
a motion for reconsideration, highlighting legal authority and
evidence that the Court overlooked in its previous opinions. At
this stage, the Court only will note that Plaintiff appears to be
confused at the procedural posture of this case. The Court’s
failure to discuss a specific claim or assertion in the Complaint
upon a § 1915 screening does not mean that the Court believes the
claim or the assertion is without merit. Exactly the opposite is
true. At the screening stage, the Court highlights only those
claims which are frivolous or malicious, or which do not state a
claim as a matter of law.
7. Plaintiff does make three main recusal arguments. First,
Plaintiff alleges that the undersigned likewise is a victim of

6

mortgage fraud, which the undersigned politely disputes. Next,
Plaintiff alleges that the undersigned is “impartial as it
pertains to shielding attorneys engaged in foreclosure litigation
and debt collection,” which is as it should be, and impartiality
is not a grounds for recusal. Finally, Plaintiff, at length,
details alleged legal errors the Court made, but such charges are
not grounds for recusal. Legal errors may be raised upon appeal
of a final order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. Plaintiff has not made any valid arguments for the
undersigned’s recusal in this case. Therefore, the motion is
denied.
8. As for the substance of Plaintiff’s amended complaint,
the pleadings are moving in the wrong direction. Plaintiff
describes her the Fourth Amended Complaint as “192 pages, and an
additional 66 pages by way of the Motion for Reconsideration.”
[Docket Item 23 ¶ 25.] The Fourth Amended Complaint continues to
reference more than 300 exhibits, which total more than 1,000
pages. The amount of material Plaintiff submits as part of her
Fourth Amended Complaint is, in this case, improper. Plaintiffs
are not permitted “to incorporate an endless series of external
documents into a complaint simply ‘by reference’ to them, as this
would lead to an impossible task for defendants in filing their
answers, and for courts in reviewing the sufficiency of
complaints.” In re Schering Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consumer

7

Class Action, 678 F.3d 235, 251 (3d Cir. 2012).
9. The rule against prolix pleadings that attach by
reference numerous documents also benefits plaintiffs. For
example, if this Court were to allow the Fourth Amended Complaint
to proceed in its full 1,200 pages, the Plaintiff would
personally be responsible to furnish more than 52,800 pages of
copies (44 defendants @ 1,200 pages each) for service of process,
at her own expense. The privilege of filing a complaint in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 relieves the plaintiff from
paying only the filing fee but does not relieve the plaintiff
from the costs of providing copies of all pleadings for service
on each defendant.
10. Plaintiff simply has not complied with the pleading
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and with the
Court’s Orders and has not succeeded in clarifying her claims.
Unfortunately, the Court is no closer today than it was nine
months ago to understanding what particular allegations of
conduct constituting fraud or conspiracy Plaintiff makes against
each of the named Defendants. Plaintiff has not made a short,
plain statement of the grounds for the relief she seeks from each
of the named Defendants, nor how each Defendant’s conduct has
caused injury to her. These are fundamental requirements of Rule
8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., before any defendant can be required to
answer a complaint. She continues to plead that the Defendants’

8

actions contributed to her husband’s death, despite this Court’s
dismissal of her “Common Law Gross Reckless Manslaughter” claim.
Rogers II, 2013 WL 1750004, at *4. The claims which are not
obviously frivolous remain incomprehensible or hidden from the
Court amid the increasingly voluminous pleadings, which at
various points touch on patent law, piracy, the free exercise of
religion, Ponzi schemes, drug cartels and other topics. Plaintiff
continues to point to news articles, public testimony not related
to her mortgage, and other lawsuits against mortgage industry
players to argue that she is entitled to relief. Many of
Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory statements and
particularized allegations against individual Defendants remain
elusive. When Plaintiff finally speaks of facts related to the
signing of her mortgage, she describes the only other person
present as “John Doe,” rather than any of the dozens of named
Defendants. As Plaintiff recognizes in her motion for recusal,
her complaint is full of statistics and legal citations in
support of her claim, most of which have no place in her
complaint and need not be submitted to the Court at this time.
11. The Court has provided Plaintiff several chances to
comply with its Orders and to provide the Court with a short,
plain statement of her allegations, as required by Rule 8(a),
Fed. R. Civ. P., and the Court has provided Plaintiff extra time
in which to comply. Instead of clarifying and simplifying her

9

claim that her mortgage was fraudulently foreclosed and the
particular basis of the fraud as required by Rules 8(a) and 9(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff has only added
to the incomprehensibility, prolixity and generalized garble of
her pleadings.
12. Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint is too long and
anything but a plain statement of the grounds which entitle her
to relief. Possibly meritorious claims, if they exist, are buried
within the thicket of extraneous allegations and factual
background. Although the Court is inclined to dismiss without
prejudice, such an order would lead only to a repeat of this
exercise in a few weeks’ time. In light of Plaintiff’s repeated
failure to cure the deficiencies noted in the Court’s previous
Opinions and Orders, despite the Court’s warnings of dismissal
with prejudice, and because Plaintiff appears unwilling to amend
her pleadings in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure or this Court’s Orders, the Court will dismiss the
complaint with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), as
well as Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 9(b), 16(f)(1)(C) and
37(b)(2)(A)(v). See Rhett v. New Jersey State Superior Court, 260
F. App’x 513, 515 (3d Cir. 2008) (affirming the district court’s
dismissal with prejudice of a second amended complaint for
failure to comply with Rule 8(a)); Stephanatos v. Cohen, 236 F.
App’x 785, 787 (3d Cir. 2007) (“While a Rule 8 dismissal is often

10

without prejudice . . . , a dismissal with prejudice was
warranted in this case” where the complaint and appendices
totaled 550 pages); Yoder v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., No. 117503, 2012 WL 6562837, at *2-*3 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 17, 2012)
(dismissing with prejudice a complaint that did not satisfy Rule
8(a) and which lacked factual specificity); cf. Holmes v. Gates,
403 F. App’x 670, 673-74 (3d Cir. 2010) (affirming the district
court’s dismissal of a complaint with prejudice after the
plaintiff was given three opportunities to cure deficiencies in
her complaint); Hoffenberg v. Bumb, 446 F. App’x 394, 399 (3d
Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal of a fourth amended complaint
after the plaintiff’s “inexplicable failure to plead in
conformity with the rules, despite four chances to amend . . .
.”).
13. This Court is not empowered to hear Plaintiff’s
generalized grievances against the American financial industry at
large. It has the authority and duty to decide actual cases and
controversies between a plaintiff and one or more defendants who
are alleged to be liable for harm suffered by the plaintiff under
some recognized cause of action arising under state or federal
law. While the Court must construe pro se pleadings liberally,
pro se litigants “are not free to ignore the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.” Yoder, 2012 WL 6562837, at *2 n.4. Plaintiff’s
failures and refusals to conform with the Federal Rules obscures

11

the substance of her claims.
14. An accompanying Order will be entered.

October 16, 2013
Date

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge

12