KAPLAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying 9 Motion to Compel; ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall accept no further filings from Petitioner in any of the following: Docket Nos. 13-2554, 13-5295, 14-1007, 14-3473, and 13-3023; Case Closed. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 7/28/16. (js)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

RICHARD KAPLAN,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Nos.

13-2554
13-5295
14-1007
14-1740
13-3023
13-3473
Crim. Nos.
07-329
08-581
MEMORANDUM ORDER

(NLH),
(NLH),
(NLH),
(NLH),
(NLH),
(NLH)
(NLH),
(NLH)

APPEARANCES:
Richard Kaplan, # 28621-050
F.C.I. Otisville
P.O. Box 1000
Otisville, NY 10963
Petitioner, Pro se

IT APPEARING THAT:
1.

On or about October 6, 2015, Petitioner Richard Kaplan

filed a motion “directing all Courts to Reverse [Their]
Erroneous Decisions” allegedly based upon newly discovered
evidence in several of his closed cases including a civil suit
and all of his motions to vacate his various sentences.

(See,

e.g., Docket No. 13-2554 at ECF No. 17; Docket no. 13-5295 at
ECF No. 23; Docket No. 14-1007 at ECF No. 13).
2.

This Court construed that motion as a motion brought

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) seeking relief
from the judgments entered against Petitioner in those cases and
denied Petitioner’s motions on December 15, 2015, as Petitioner

had not raised any new evidence or otherwise shown his
entitlement to such relief.

(See, e.g., Docket No. 13-2554 at

ECF Nos. 28-29).
3.

On January 14, 2016, Petitioner filed a notice of

appeal challenging this Court’s denial of his Rule 60(b)
motions.
4.

(See, e.g., Docket No. 13-2554 at ECF No. 32).
On or about February 16, 2016, Petitioner also filed

motions for an evidentiary hearing and a teleconference on the
issues he raised in his Rule 60(b) motions in all of the cases
in which he filed his Rule 60(b) cases, as well as in his two
criminal dockets.

(See Docket No. 07-329 at ECF No. 63; Docket

No. 08-581 at ECF No. 86; Docket No. 14-1740 at ECF Nos. 24-25;
Docket No. 13-2554 at ECF Nos. 33-34; Docket no. 13-5295 at ECF
Nos. 34-35; Docket No. 14-1007 at ECF Nos. 23-24).
5.

On March 3, 2016, this Court entered an opinion and

order construing Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing
as a motion for reconsideration and denying that Order as
Petitioner had failed to show any basis for relief.

(See, e.g.,

Docket No. 13-2554 at ECF Nos. 35-36).
6.

On May 12, 2016, the Third Circuit disposed of

Plaintiff’s appeal by denying him a certificate of appealability
and making the following findings:

2

Kaplan’s application for a certificate of
appealability is denied because jurists of
reason would not find the District Court’s
procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v.
McDaniel,
529
U.S.
473,
484
(2000).
Appellant’s motion filed pursuant to Rule
60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
was essentially an unauthorized successive §
2255 motion over which the District Court
lacked
jurisdiction.
See
Robinson
v.
Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 138-40 (3d Cir. 2002).
And to the extent Kaplan’s motion challenged
the integrity of the habeas proceeding,
jurists of reason would not debate the
District Court’s ruling that his Rule 60(b)
motion was untimely if it was based on newlydiscovered evidence (Rule 60(b)(2)) or fraud
(Rule 60(b)(3)). Nor would jurists of reason
debate that to the extent the motion was filed
pursuant to 60(b)(6) (“any other reason that
justifies relief”), relief is not justified.
Kaplan’s claim that Garafalo is a federal
agent is not supported by anything other than
his misunderstanding of a Magistrate Judge’s
order. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524,
535 (2005) (movant must show extraordinary
circumstances to reopen habeas proceeding).
(Docket No. 13-2554 at ECF No. 37).
7.

On May 23, 2016, Petitioner filed yet another motion,

this time seeking to compel discovery, which he filed in all of
the cases previously mentioned, as well as in a coram nobis
docket and several other civil matters before other Judges of
this Court.

(Docket No. 13-2554 at ECF No. 38; Docket No. 13-

3023 at ECF No. 9; Docket No. 14-3473 at ECF No. 3; Docket No.
14-1740 at ECF No. 28; Docket No. 14-1007 at ECF No. 27; Docket

3

No. 13-5295 at ECF No. 38; Docket No. 07-329 at ECF No. 76;
Docket . 08-581 at ECF No. 99).
8.

On June 2, 2016, Magistrate Judge Schneider denied

Petitioner’s motion to compel discovery in Docket No. 14-1740.
(Docket No. 14-1740 at ECF no. 29).
9.

As noted by Magistrate Judge Schneider, all of the

cases currently before this Court in which Petitioner has filed
his motion to compel discovery are well and truly finished, and
have been closed for over a year.

In addition, as noted above,

this Court has previously denied Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion
in all of the cases in which he filed it, and denied
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of that denial.
Likewise, the Third Circuit has upheld the denial of
Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion.

As Petitioner seeks discovery

in closed cases which have all been resolved either on the
merits or have been dismissed as time barred, and as Petitioner
has shown no meritorious basis for permitting him to engage in
discovery in these long-closed cases, Petitioner’s motion shall
be denied.
10.

Because Petitioner continues to file meritless motions

in his closed cases, even after this Court has already denied
him the relief he seeks multiple times, this Court is compelled

4

to take further action in the interests of finality and in
preserving limited judicial resources.

As such, this Court will

direct the Clerk of the Court to accept no further filings in
Petitioner’s mandamus, habeas, and coram nobis cases.
IT IS THEREFORE on this

28th

day of July, 2016,

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall RE-OPEN Docket
Numbers 07-329, 08-581, 13-2554, 13-5295, 14-1007, 14-3473, and
13-3023 for the purposes of this Order only; and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions to compel discovery
(Docket No. 13-2554 at ECF No. 38; Docket No. 13-3023 at ECF No.
9; Docket No. 14-3473 at ECF No. 3; Docket No. 14-1740 at ECF
No. 28; Docket No. 14-1007 at ECF No. 27; Docket No. 13-5295 at
ECF No. 38; Docket No. 07-329 at ECF No. 76; Docket No. 08-581
at ECF No. 99) are DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall accept no further
filings from Petitioner in any of the following: Docket Nos. 132554, 13-5295, 14-1007, 14-3473, and 13-3023; and it is finally

5

ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this
Memorandum Order upon Petitioner by regular mail, and shall
close the files (Docket Nos. 07-329, 08-581, 13-2554, 13-5295,
14-1007, 14-3473, and 13-3023).

s/ Noel L. Hillman
Hon. Noel L. Hillman,
United States District Judge
At Camden, New Jersey

6