PURISIMA v. TD BANK et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER, Denying 3 Motion to Vacate; CASE CLOSED. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 1/16/18. (js)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ANTON PURISIMA,
Plaintiff,
1:16-cv-2906 (NLH/JS)
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
v.
TD BANK and PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC
OF CHINA,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
ANTON PURISIMA
390 9TH AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10001
Appearing pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
On June 2, 2016, this Court entered a Memorandum Opinion
and Order granting Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis but dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice.
In pertinent part, the Court’s Order stated as follows:
Here, Plaintiff alleges that there is “wrong and
fraudulent information” in his TD Bank statements,
purposefully generated as an “intentional insult” based
upon his Filipino national origin.
(Compl. at 14.)
Plaintiff further alleges TD Bank is conspiring with
Chinese employees of TD Bank who are also employed by
the “People’s Republic of China” to steal his money.
(Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges claims under Title II
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “public accommodation
violations” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000a-6, and
“retaliation.”
He requests “11 decillion dollars” in
damages. (Compl. at 4.)
While Plaintiff identifies numerous TD Bank
statement entries he alleges are fraudulent, Plaintiff
fails to plausibly allege how these false charges are
related in any way to discrimination based on his
national origin.
Additionally, the Court finds that the complaint
fails to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, which requires that a complaint contain
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a). Specifically, Plaintiff’s 18-page complaint does
not contain factual averments to support his claims for
relief that he was discriminated against based on his
national origin.
On June 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate the Court’s
June 2, 2016 Order.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party
or its legal representative from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1)
mistake,
inadvertence,
excusable neglect;
(2)
newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new
trial under Rule 59(b);
(3)
fraud
(whether
previously
called
intrinsic
or
extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party;
(4)
the judgment is void;
(5)
the
judgment
has
been
satisfied,
released, or discharged; it is based on
an earlier judgment that has been
reversed or vacated; or applying it
2
surprise,
or
prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6)
any other reason that justifies relief.
While Plaintiff argues the Motion is being made pursuant to
Rule 60(b)(1), (2), and (6), Plaintiff does not argue “mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”
Plaintiff
further does not present the Court with newly discovered
evidence.
Indeed, Plaintiff’s Motion does not provide this
Court with any reason to vacate its prior Order.
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate will be denied.
Plaintiff’s Motion further requests class action
certification and appointment of pro bono counsel.
As the
Court’s June 2, 2016 Order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint will
not be vacated, these requests are denied.
The Court further
denies Plaintiff’s various requests to supplement the Motion
with additional filings.1
Accordingly,
IT IS on this
16th
day of
January
, 2018
ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to reopen this matter;
and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate [3] is hereby
The Court does not address Plaintiff’s October 13, 2017
letter, which is entirely unrelated to the allegations in
Plaintiff’s complaint.
1
3
DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to mark this matter as
CLOSED.
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
At Camden, New Jersey
4
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?