KAPLAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 1/12/2016. (drw)
*NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Richard Kaplan, # 28621-050
P.O. Box 1000
Otisville, NY 10963
Petitioner, Pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
Presently before the Court is the motion of Petitioner Richard
Kaplan requesting that this Court appoint him counsel, provide him
an evidentiary hearing, and transport him to that hearing, which
Petitioner filed in both of his criminal cases as well as in one
of his civil actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and three
of his habeas corpus dockets.
(Docket No. 07-cr-329 at ECF No.
58; Docket No. 08-cr-581 at ECF No. 82; Docket No. 14-cv-1740 at
ECF No. 20; Docket No. 13-cv-2554 at ECF No. 25; Docket no. 13cv-5295 at ECF No. 26; Docket No. 14-cv-1007 at ECF No. 15).
motion arises out of Petitioner’s previous motion pursuant to Rule
60(b) for relief from this Court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s
various habeas matters, which this Court has already denied by way
of a unified opinion filed in all three habeas matters.
Docket Nos. 13-cv-2554 at 26-27; Docket Nos. 14-cv-1007 at 16-17;
Docket Nos. 13-cv-5295 at 27-28).
For the following reasons, this
Court denies Petitioner’s motion as moot.
surrounding Petitioner’s various federal cases in its previous
opinion denying Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion, see Kaplan v.
United States, Nos. 13-cv-2554, 13-cv-5295, and 14-cv-1007, 2015
WL 8780289, at *1-3 (D.N.J. Dec. 15, 2015), only a very brief
recitation of the facts is necessary for the disposition of the
unrelated case, Petitioner filed a motion “directing all courts to
reverse [their] erroneous decisions” as to Petitioner’s various
cases, a motion which this Court construed as a motion for relief
from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Id. at 1-2.
Petitioner essentially argued that he
should be relieved from this Court’s dismissal of three of his
prior habeas matters on time-bar grounds because he had “newly”
discovered that a witness in one of his criminal convictions was
allegedly a government agent and not an informant as previously
Id. at 2-3.
Petitioner’s assertions and allegations,
Magistrate Judge Clark in another of Petitioner’s civil cases,
Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion was based on a false premise arising
out of that misreading, and because Petitioner had in any event
failed to show that he was entitled to relief under the rule, this
Court denied Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion, as well as several
Id. at 3-4.
After this Court had reached a decision on Petitioner’s Rule
60(b) motion, but before the opinion and order denying the 60(b)
motion and several related motions was filed, Petitioner filed the
instant motion on November 30, 2015.
In his current motion,
Petitioner requests that this Court appoint him counsel, hold an
evidentiary hearing, and order that Petitioner be transported to
that hearing so that Petitioner can show that he is entitled to
relief on his now-denied 60(b) motion.
Petitioner filed identical
copies of this motion in both of his criminal cases, one § 1983
case, and all three of his habeas cases, all of which had been
closed for a considerable period of time before Petitioner filed
his Rule 60(b) motion.
(See Docket No. 07-cr-329 at ECF No. 58;
Docket No. 08-cr-581 at ECF No. 82; Docket No. 14-cv-1740 at ECF
No. 20; Docket No. 13-cv-2554 at ECF No. 25; Docket no. 13-cv-5295
at ECF No. 26; Docket No. 14-cv-1007 at ECF No. 15).
In his current motion, Petitioner seeks to have this Court
assign him counsel, hold a hearing, and transport Petitioner to
All of these requests, however, relate directly to
Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion.
Indeed, Petitioner specifically
states that he seeks a hearing where he can argue that there is a
learning that “John Garafalo is and was a Government Agent – not
an inmate and was unlawfully placed in at Fairton Camp to” entrap
This argument was the centerpiece and main thrust of
Petitioners Rule 60(b) motion, which this Court has already denied.
Kaplan, 2015 WL 8780289 at *3-4.
Because this Court has already
current motion for a hearing and the appointment of counsel to
resolve Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion is moot, and must be denied
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner’s motion seeking the
appointment of counsel, a hearing, and transportation to that
hearing (Docket No. 07-cr-329 at ECF No. 58; Docket No. 08-cr-581
at ECF No. 82; Docket No. 14-cv-1740 at ECF No. 20; Docket No. 13cv-2554 at ECF No. 25; Docket no. 13-cv-5295 at ECF No. 26; Docket
No. 14-cv-1007 at ECF No. 15) is DENIED as moot.
__s/ Noel L. Hillman_
Hon. Noel L. Hillman,
United States District Judge
January 12, 2016
At Camden, New Jersey
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?