HAHN v. THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE et al

Filing 187

OPINION AND ORDER denying pltf's application to amend his complt. with prejudice; directing the pltf. not to file any more applications or motions to amend his complt. without prior approval from the Court; dismissing all claims against defts. United States Department of Commerce, Patrizia Warhaffigi and John e. Tenhoeve; pltf's motion for trial is moot and closing case. Signed by Judge Esther Salas on 6/26/2013. (nr, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

PHILIP E. HAHN,

Civil Action No.:

Plaintiff,

2:11-CV-06369-ES-SCM

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OPINION AND ORDER
ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

OF COMMERCE, et al.,
Defendants.

I.

INTRODUCTION
This

informal

matter

comes

applications

(“Plaintiff”)

to

before
by

amend

pro
his

the

Court

se

plaintiff

Complaint.

by

(See

(“D.E.”) 104, 114, 126, 129, 158, 173 and 178).

way

of

Philip

multiple
E.

Docket

Hahn

Entries

For the reasons

set forth below, Plaintiff’s requests for leave to amend his
Complaint to add additional parties and claims are DENIED.
II.

BACKGROUND

A detailed background of this matter may be found in the
Court’s June 17, 2013, Opinion. (D.E. 145).

In essence, “[t]his

matter arises from Plaintiff’s temporary psychiatric commitment
to the Bergen Regional Medical Center and the litigation that

ensued.” Id.; see also Hahn v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, No. 116369, 2012 WL 3961739, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 10, 2012).
All defendants named in the original Complaint have been
dismissed.

(See

D.E.

66,

Sept.

10,

2012

Order

(granting

11

motions to Dismiss); D.E. 146, June 17, 2013 Order (granting
final motion to dismiss/dismissing remaining defendants)).
Court

has

granted

defendants,

twelve

including

law

(12)

motions

firms,

to

dismiss

pharmaceutical

This

various

companies,

government agencies and Supreme Court justices.
Meanwhile,

Plaintiff

has

filed

several

informal

applications to amend his Complaint to add additional parties
and claims.1

Some of these applications violated the requirement

set out in Local Civil Rule 7.1(f) to include a proposed amended
pleading.

Most recently, without first obtaining leave from the

1

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on February 22, 2012,
without consent of defendants or leave of the Court seeking to
add the Hon. John Langan, J.S.C. as a defendant. (See D.E. 33).
The Court struck that pleading and informed Plaintiff that he
must first seek leave of the Court in order to amend his
Complaint. (See D.E. 36, 37). Plaintiff subsequently sought to
amend his Complaint on August 27, 2012, (see D.E. 64), and on
October 1, 2012, (D.E. 80).
The application was ultimately
denied by the Hon. Cathy L. Waldor, U.S.M.J. on December 13,
2012. (D.E. 87).
On April 25 and again on May 3, 2013,
Plaintiff again filed informal applications to amend his
Complaint. (D.E. 126, 129).
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed
submissions seeking to add additional parties and claims. (See
D.E. 158, 178). The proposed additional parties/claims contained
therein are also reflected here.
2

Court, on July 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.2
(See D.E. 173, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint).

It is against

this backdrop that this Court addresses Plaintiff’s most recent
attempt to amend his Complaint.
III. DISCUSSION
A.

Failure to Comply With L. Civ. R. 7.1

New Jersey Local Civil Rule 7.1(f) states:
(f) Motions Regarding Additional Pleadings
Upon filing a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint or answer, a complaint in
intervention or other pleading requiring
leave of Court, the moving party shall
2

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not comply with L. Civ. R.
7.1(f) because it does not name any of the parties that
Plaintiff stated he was seeking leave to add in his informal
applications. (See D.E. 126, 129). Here, Plaintiff has done
nothing more than cherry pick certain pages from his original
Complaint and has re-submitted those pages as his “Amended
Complaint.” A comparison of the original Complaint and this
Amended Complaint reveals that: The captions of the two
pleadings are identical except for the fact that Plaintiff
crossed out the words “Department Of Commerce” which is part of
“The United States Department Of Commerce”); the page numbers of
the Amended Complaint (handwritten in the top right corner of
each page) are non-sequential, highlighting the fact that
Plaintiff simply resubmitted selected pages from his original
Complaint; the signature page contains the typewritten date of
“October 31, 2011,” the date upon which Plaintiff filed his
original Complaint, (see D.E. 1) (Plaintiff handwrote in the
date of July 24, 2013); and the language of the Amended
Complaint is otherwise identical to the language in the original
Complaint. It is worth noting that per Docket Entries 66 and
146, all of the Defendants named in Plaintiff’s proposed Amended
Complaint, have already been dismissed from this case, thereby
rendering Plaintiff’s putative Amended Complaint a complete
nullity (in additional to being procedurally out of order).
3

attach to the motion a copy of the proposed
pleading
or
amendments
and
retain
the
original until the Court has ruled.
If
leave to file is granted, the moving party
shall file the original forthwith.
Id.

“The purpose of Local Rule 7.1(f) is to give the Court and

the parties a chance to evaluate the sufficiency of the proposed
pleading.”

Folkman v. Roster Fin., Nos. 05-2099, 05-2242, 05-

2243, 05-2244, 05-2245, 2005 WL 2000169, at *8 n.7 (D.N.J. Aug.
15, 2005); see also U.F.C.W. Local 56 v. J.D.’s Market, 240
F.R.D. 149, 150 (D.N.J. 2007) (stating that one of the “cardinal
rules” for a party seeking leave to amend a pleading is that a
copy

of

the

motion).

proposed

amended

pleading

be

attached

to

the

Failure to include a proposed amended complaint is a

basis to deny a Plaintiff’s motion to amend.3

See, e.g., Tucker

v. Wynne, No. 08-4390, 2009 WL 2448520, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 10,
2009).
Plaintiff
complaint

with

deficiency

is

did
any
an

not
of

submit
his

a

copy

of

applications

independently

a

to

sufficient

Plaintiff’s requests for leave to amend.

proposed

amended

amend.
basis

That
to

deny

See Lake v. Arnold,

232 F.3d 360, 374 (3d Cir. 2000) (holding that even where the
3

For the reasons articulated in footnote No. 2, supra, the
Court does not view or accept the purported Amended Complaint,
filed without leave from this Court on July 24, 2013 (two-plus
months after Plaintiff made his informal motion for leave to
amend), as a proposed amended complaint as required by Local
Civil Rule 7.1(f). See supra n.3.
4

district court failed to provide a reason for its denial of
plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint, the court had not
abused

its

“failure

power

to

in

denying

provide

a

draft

the

motion

Amended

because

Complaint

plaintiffs’
would

be

an

adequate basis on which the court could deny the [plaintiffs’]
request”).
B. Substantive Deficiencies
This

Court

will

first

consider

whether

the

proposed

additional defendants would be properly joined under Rule 20,
(see Waterloov Gutter Prot. Sys. Co. v. Absolute Gutter Prot.,
L.L.C., 64 F. Supp. 2d 398, 407 (D.N.J. 1999)), and then proceed
to determine if Plaintiff’s proposed amendments are permissible
under Rule 15.

See Hinson v. Norwest Fin. S.C., Inc., 239 F.3d

611, 618 (4th Cir. 2001) (stating, “a court determining whether
to grant a motion to amend to join additional [parties] must
consider both the general principles of amendment provided by
Rule 15(a) and also the more specific joinder provisions of Rule
20(a).”).
In addition to Plaintiff’s failure to submit a proposed
pleading

with

his

application(s)

for

leave

to

amend,

his

applications fail to satisfy the substantive requirements for a
motion to amend.
attempts

to

add

More specifically, Plaintiff’s most recent
a

laundry

list

5

of

additional

parties

and

additional

claims

fail

for

two

distinct

reasons.

First,

Plaintiff’s attempts to add certain defendants does not comport
with

Federal

Rule

joinder of parties.

of

Civil

Procedure

20(a),

which

governs

Secondly, Plaintiff’s proposed additional

claims are futile.
1) Joinder Under Rule 20(a)
Under Rule 20(a)(2):
Persons . . . may be joined in one action as
defendants if:
(A) any right to relief is asserted against
them
jointly,
severally,
or
in
the
alternative with respect to or arising out
of the same transaction, occurrence, or
series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to
all defendants will arise in the action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).

Thus, Rule 20 sets forth a two-

pronged test for joinder of parties requiring: (1) the assertion
of a right to relief against the party to be joined, which is
predicated

upon

or

arises

out

of

a

single

transaction

or

occurrence or a series of transactions and occurrences; and (2)
questions of law or fact common to all parties.
v.

Alford

Indus.,

Inc.,

(D.N.J. Oct. 7, 1991).

No.

89-1879,

1991

WL

N.J. Mach. Inc.
340196,

at

*1

For joinder to be permissible, both

requirements must be fulfilled.

See Mesa Computer Utils., Inc.

v. Western Union, 67 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Del. 1975) (holding
that franchise agreements negotiated and executed at different
6

times and places nonetheless satisfied the “same transaction or
occurrence” test because plaintiffs all alleged a common pattern
of fraudulent conduct by defendant).

Joinder “promote[s] trial

convenience

final

and

disputes....”

expedite[s]

the

determination

of

Snodgrass v. Ford Motor Co., No. 96-1814, 2002 WL

485688, at *2 (D.N.J. March 28, 2002) (quoting Miller v. Hygrade
Food

Prods.

(citation

&

discretion
“principles

Corp.,

202

quotation
to

permit

of

F.R.D.

marks

144

omitted).

joinder

fundamental

142,

if

(E.D.

Thus,

joinder

fairness.”

Pa.

the

Court

has

with

the

comports

N.J.

2001))

Mach.,

1991

WL

340196, at *1 (citations & quotation marks omitted).
In

the

individuals

instant
and

case,

Plaintiff

governmental

seeks

entities

as

to

join

multiple

defendants.

In

assessing the propriety of joining the proposed defendants, the
Court will examine each of Plaintiff’s applications for leave to
amend/add additional parties in turn below.4
a. Plaintiff’s 04/25/13 Application (D.E. 126)
Here, Plaintiff seeks to add the following as defendants:
The United States; the United States Air Force; the State of New
4

Here, the Court discusses D.E. Nos. 126, 129, 153 and 178. The
Court does not explicitly address D.E. Nos. 104 and 114 because
both relate to Plaintiff’s attempt to add the “United States” as
a defendant, which is also incorporated in D.E. 126, discussed
herein in section ‘a’.
Also, because the Court has already
discussed the mootness of the Amended Complaint Plaintiff filed
under D.E. 173, it is unnecessary for the Court to address this
docket entry in this section of the opinion. See supra, n.2.
7

Jersey, Office of the Governor;

the New Jersey Air National

Guard; Col. Alpo G. Baldi, NJANG; and Lt. David Segal [sic].
Plaintiff’s

legal

argument

in

support

of

adding

the

aforementioned parties is that various defendants conspired to
deprive

him

of

his

constitutional

right

to

a

jury

trial.

According to Plaintiff, the prospective defendants injected him
with vaccines without informing him of alternatives and these
vaccinations caused him to react in a manner that resulted in
him being admitted to a medical facility.
While Plaintiff’s “legal argument” recites that the alleged
acts “are transactionally related to the matters being pled via
2:11-cv-6369,” logic, reason and most of all Plaintiff’s own
averments reveal that the alleged actions by the prospective
defendants do not satisfy the Rule 20 “single transaction or
occurrence
standard.

or

a

series

of

transactions

and

occurrences”

Plaintiff has not proffered any facts that show how

these two alleged incidents are factually or temporally related
such

that

they

occurrence or

a

would

constitute

the

same

series of transactions.

transaction

or

The current action

represents Plaintiff’s attempt to seek redress in the district
court for his failure to receive a jury trial during various
state

court

proceedings

of

a

case

in

which

he

sued

various

defendants as a result of him being involuntarily committed to
Bergen

Regional

Medical

Center
8

in

2008.

The

fact

that

the

action presently pending here in this Court seeks redress for
the

alleged

involuntary

commitment

that

was

the

subject

of

Plaintiff’s state court case does not make the two matters part
of

the

same

transaction

or

occurrence

for

satisfying the requirements for joinder.

the

purpose

The two cases

of
are

legally distinct, involve completely different allegedly liable
parties

and

necessarily

predicates.

involve

completely

unrelated

factual

As such, Plaintiff’s attempt to add defendants who

allegedly injected him with the vaccines that precipitated his
involuntary commitment is not part of the same transaction (or
series

of

transactions)

seeks

redress

for

involving

not

having

the

instant

received

case

a

where

jury

he

trial.

Consequently, Rule 20(a) is not satisfied because there are
no

common

alleged

questions

of

vaccination

law

by

and

the

fact

that

proposed

exist

between

defendants

and

the
the

defendants who allegedly deprived Plaintiff of his right to a
jury

trial.

Therefore,

joinder

of

the

defendants

named

in

Plaintiff’s application is impermissible.
b. Plaintiff’s 5/03/13 Application (D.E. 129)
Here, Plaintiff seeks to add the following defendants: Lt.
David Segal [sic], Lt. Steinberg, Paramus Police Department; PO
[sic]

Kelly,

Paramus

Police

Department,

PO

Boccher

[sic],

Paramus Police Department. Plaintiff’s legal argument in support

9

of

his

motion

to

add

these

parties

is

that

Paramus

police

officers deprived him of liberty without due process of law.
(D.E. 129).
Plaintiff’s legal argument does not at all address the Rule
20(a) joinder requirements, discussed infra, as it is completely
devoid of any factual allegations from which the Court could
conclude that the alleged conduct of the prospective defendants
was transactionally related to the allegations Plaintiff made in
the

instant

action.

Therefore,

joinder

of

the

proposed

defendants is not permissible.
c. Plaintiff’s 7/02/13 Application (D.E. 158)
Plaintiff seeks to add Gerhard Hahn and Dorothy Hahn as
defendants to the instant action.5
to

add

these

defendants,

In support of his application

Plaintiff

application

states

relevant part:
Please accept this letter in lieu of a more
formal motion to amend the above referenced
complaints to include: 1) Gerhard Hahn; and
2) Dorothy Hahn as they were part of a
conspiracy to kill the plaintiff’s dog with
insulin in May of 2013.
As the killing of
the dog was intended to intimidate the
plaintiff and thereby deter him from seeking
his Constitutional rights the plaintiff seek
relief via title 42 section 1985 and any
other applicable law.

5

Upon information obtained, Gerhard Hahn and Dorothy Hahn are
believed to be the Plaintiff’s parents.
10

in

(D.E.

158).

The

Court

does

not

perceive

any

transactional

relationship between the alleged conspiracy to intimidate the
Plaintiff and the alleged conduct that is the subject of the
current law suit.

Similarly, the Court cannot fathom how there

might be any common questions of law or fact with respect to the
conduct alleged and the alleged conduct that is the subject of
the

instant

lawsuit.

Plaintiff

has,

therefore,

failed

to

satisfy either prong of the Rule 20(a) test and consequently,
joinder is impermissible.
d. Plaintiff’s 7/25/13 Application (D.E. 178)
Plaintiff seeks to add the United States and the “Honorable
Mannion” [sic]6 as defendants based on the following statement in
this submission:
FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION
TITLE 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985
FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT ACTION

PURSUANT TO
AND 1986 &

1. The defendant, Honorable Mannion, did
become liable to the plaintiff via a title
42 section 1983, 1885 and 1986 action when
the
honorable
Mannion
did
deny
the
plaintiff his right to a trial by jury,
inflicted cruel and unusual punishment on
the plaintiff and denied him due process
of law in the matter of 2:11-cv-1874.
[sic]

6

The Honorable Steven C. Mannion, U.S.M.J. has been the
Magistrate Judge presiding over the pre-trial matters in this
case since December 11, 2012.
11

(D.E. 178).

Plaintiff alleges that Judge Mannion deprived him

of a trial by jury in the instant action.
essentially

the

same

parties;

however,

addition

to

being

allegation

this

made

allegation

entirely

This allegation is

against

against

factually

numerous

Judge

Mannion,

unsupported,

transactionally related to the instant action.

other

is

in
not

Concomitantly,

there are no common questions of law or fact with respect to the
instant

action

and

the

against Judge Mannion.

allegations

that

Plaintiff

now

makes

As such, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy

Rule 20(a)’s requirements for joinder.
2) Futility of Plaintiff’s Proposed Additional Claims
A liberal construction of Plaintiff’s informal applications
to amend indicates that in addition to seeking to add numerous
parties, he also seeks to add four additional claims:
i. Proposed
Additional
Claim:
“The
above
referenced parties are liable… because they
injected him (Plaintiff) with vaccines while
acting under color of state regulation
without informing the plaintiff of the
alternative
of
non-vaccination.
The
vaccines in turn made him (Plaintiff)
agitated and led to him being admitted to
the Bergen Regional Medical Center in 2008.”
(D.E. 126 at 3).
ii. Proposed
Additional
Claim:
“The
above
referenced
parties
are
liable
to
the
plaintiff
because
they
deprived
the
plaintiff of his liberty without due process
of law under the color of being Paramus
Police Officers.” (D.E. 129 at 3).

12

iii. Proposed Additional Claim: (Gerhard Hahn and
Dorothy Hahn) “were part of a conspiracy to
kill the plaintiff’s dog with insulin in May
of 2013.” (D.E. 158).
iv. Proposed Additional Claim: CIVIL RIGHTS
COMPLAINT [sic] “…Philip E. Hahn, a United
States citizen, appearing pro se. Mr. Hahn
brings this complaint for violation of his
individual and associational rights under
the Fifth, Seventh, Eights and Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution
in violation of title 42 U.S.C. 1983, title
42 U.S.C. 1985 and title 42 U.S.C. 1986.”
(D.E. 178 at 3).
A. Legal Standard For Futility
A

court

frivolous

will

or

consider

advances

a

F.R.D.

462,

468

“insufficient

on

(D.N.J.

its

or

futile

defense

if
is

that

it

“is

legally

Harrison Beverage Co. v. Dribeck,

quotations marks omitted).
is

amendment

claim

insufficient on its face.”
133

an

1990)

(internal

citations

&

In determining whether an amendment
face,”

the

Court

employs

the

same

standard that is applied to a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal motion.
In re Burlington Coat Factory Secs. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434
(3d Cir. 1997).
before

the

Under a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis, the question

Court

is

not

whether

the

movant

will

ultimately

prevail, but whether the complaint sets forth “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell
Atl.

Corp.

v.

Twombly,

550

U.S.

544,

570

(2007).

Detailed

factual allegations are not necessary to survive a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion, but “a [pleader’s] obligation to provide the grounds of
13

his entitlement to relief requires more than labels[,] . . .
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action” and demands that the “[f]actual allegations ...
be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level
... on the assumption that all the allegations in the [pleading]
are true (even if doubtful in fact).”

Id. at 555 (quotation

marks omitted).
A
met.

two-part

analysis

determines

whether

this

standard

is

Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009)

(interpreting

Ashcroft

v.

Iqbal,

556

U.S.

662,

667

(2009).

First, a court separates the factual and legal elements of a
claim.
forth

Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210.
in

the

pleading

and

the

All well-pleaded facts set
contents

of

the

documents

incorporated therein must be accepted as true, but the Court may
disregard any legal conclusions.
667

(noting

“labels

and

that

a

complaint

conclusions,”

a

Id. at 210; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
is

insufficient

“formulaic

if

it

recitation

offers
of

the

elements of a cause of action,” or “naked assertions devoid of
further

factual

enhancement”)

(internal

quotations

marks

&

alterations omitted).
Second,

a

court

must

determine

whether

a

plaintiff’s

complaint articulates “enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.”
accord Fowler, 578 F.3d at 211.
14

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570;

As the Supreme Court instructed

in Iqbal, “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads

factual

reasonable

content

inference

misconduct alleged.”

that

that

allows

the

the

defendant

court
is

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 667.

to

draw

liable

the

for

the

Although this is

not a “probability requirement,” the well-pleaded facts must do
more than demonstrate that the conduct is “merely consistent”
with liability so as to “permit the court to infer more than the
mere possibility of misconduct” to make a showing of entitlement
to relief. Id. at 1949-50 (internal quotation marks omitted).
This “context-specific task . . . requires the reviewing court
to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”

Fowler,

578 F.3d at 211 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679).
B. Futility of Plaintiff’s Proposed Claims
Even
proposed
pled.

under

the

additional

most

liberal

claims,

they

construction
are

legally

of

Plaintiff’s

insufficient

as

In addition to seeking to add numerous parties who were

in no way associated with the alleged conduct that resulted in
Plaintiff being deprived of a right to a jury trial (the subject
of the instant action), the claims Plaintiff seeks to add are
devoid of facts from which the Court could reasonably conclude
that

the

Plaintiff.

putative

defendants

could

possibly

be

liable

to

Plaintiff’s allegations are nothing more than broad,

15

sweeping generalized allegations against all proposed defendants
combined with recitations of legal conclusions.
Plaintiff

has

been

afforded

ample

time

and

multiple

opportunities to properly present a motion for leave to amend
but

he

has

required
failed

repeatedly

procedural

to

meet

the

ignored

rules.
basic

In

or

neglected

doing

substantive

so

to

follow

Plaintiff

legal

has

the
also

requirements

as

articulated herein.
IV.

CONCLUSION

This

matter,

having

come

before

via

multiple

informal

applications by Plaintiff to amend his complaint; and the Court
having considered same; and for good cause shown,
IT IS ON THIS 26th day of August, 2013:
ORDERED

that

Plaintiff’s

applications

to

amend

his

complaint are hereby DENIED with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall not file any further informal
applications or motions to amend his complaint without prior
approval from the Court. Failure to abide by this Order may
result in sanctions; and it is further
ORDERED that because Plaintiff has also failed to prosecute
or effect service of the summons and complaint within 120 days
of the filing of the Complaint, (see D.E. 145 at 12), all claims
against

Defendants

United

States
16

Department

of

Commerce,

Patrizia Warhaffigi, and John E. Tenhoeve are dismissed; and it
is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s August 1, 2013 motions for trial,
(D.E. 181 & 184), are moot since all claims are now dismissed;
and it is further
ORDERED

that

the

Clerk

of

the

Court

shall

close

this

matter.

s/ Esther Salas
Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.

17