CLAUSO v. JOHN DOES
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REOPENING CASE; construing the letters in civil no. 09-5306,docket Nos. 67 and 68 as motions for reconsideration of this Court's prior order; granting and denying in part Clauso's motions for reconsideration; d irecting that the Clerk remit to Clauso the filing fee of $5.00 in connection with 12-3969; directing that the Clerk remit to Clauso the filing fee of $350.00 dollars submitted in connection with the submissions made in Clauso -v- Does Civi l No. 12-3971; administrativley terminating Civil No. 12-3969; pltf. may have Civil No. 12-3969 and 12-3971 reopened in the event Clauso submits in those matters his amended pleading; denying informa pauperis application in Civil No. 12-5601; adminis tratively terminating civil No. 12-5601; Clauso may reopened Civil12-5601 in the event he submits an amended complt. with in informa pauperis application and fee; directing the Clerk to serve, by regular mail, a copy of this memorandum and order, two copies of a blank civil complt. forms, a blank section 2254 habeas petition form and three application for in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 9/26/2012. (nr,) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
THOMAS JAMES CLAUSO,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.
09-5306
(CCC)
Civil Action No.
12-3969
(CCC)
Civil Action No.
12-3971
(CCC)
Civil Action No,
12-5601
(CCC)
V.
ME,
CLOVER,
Defendant.
THOMAS JAMES CLAUSO,
Plaintiff,
V.
MR.
CLOVER,
Defendant.
THOMAS JAMES CLAUSO,
Plaintiff,
V.
JOHN DOES,
Defendants.
THOMAS JAMES CLAUSO,
Plaintiff,
V,
WARDEN LAGANO et al,,
Defendants,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
APPLIES TO ALL ACTIONS
Cecchi,
District Judge.
These four matters come before the Court upon Thomas James
Clausots
(NClausofl)
Civil Action No,
filing of four letters in Clauso v.
09-5306
(CCC),
Docket Entry Nos.
Clausos commencement of a new civil action,
Civil Action No.
1.
12-5601
(CCC),
67
-
Clauso v.
Glover,
70,
and
Laqano,
and it appearing that:
Clauso has instituted a number of civil rights and habeas
matters in this District.’
A.
Specifically,
it appears that:
Clauso has commenced at least five habeas matters
asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
1.
§ 2254.
While still serving the prison term ensuing from
his first conviction,
Clauso commenced a Section
2254 proceeding,
which was terminated by Chief
Judge Garrett B.
Brown,
In re Clauso,
2.
84-3406
Jr.
on April 3,
1990.
See
(GEE)
Shortly prior to his second conviction,
Clauso
commenced another Section 2254 action,
which was
1
Following his conviction on first-degree attempted murder
charges (and a cluster of related offenses) , Clauso was sentenced
to life imprisonment with a twenty-five year parole disqualifier.
See Stace r Clauso, 2005 WL 3050649 (N J
Super Ct App Div
Nov. 16, 2005); accord <>.
That conviction was rendered on
September 9, 1988.
It followed Clausos prior conviction
rendered on March 6, 1981, based on aggravated assault, unlawful
possession of weapons, receipt of stolen property, etc., which
resulted in a maximum sentence of twenty years.
See jj
In sum,
it appears that, starting from at least 1981, Clauso has been
incarcerated at all times and has litigated prolifically.
2
errrdnated by Chief Judge John F.
13,
3.
1990.
Clauso v.
On March 2,
1995,
88-2337
2
(JFG).
Clauso commenced his next
section 2254 action;
Judge Joseph H.
Beyers,
Gerry on March
that petition was denied by
Rodriguez on June 6,
failure to exhaust state remedies.
1996 for
The Court of
Appeals denied Clauso a certificate of
appealability on December 20,
Morton,
Civil Action No.
Entry Nos.
4.
95-1003
See Clauso v.
(JHR),
Docket
7 and 11.
On December 17,
1999,
Section 2254 action.
Action No.
1996.
99-5690
Clauso commenced yet another
See Clauso v.
(AET).
Lazzaro,
Civil
The Honorable Anne E.
Thompson presided over that matter and dismissed
Clauso’s application without prejudice,
unexhausted.
See id.
Docket Entry No.
again,
11.
as
Having
his motion for reconsideration denied by Judge
Thompson,
appealed.
2
see id.,
Docket Entry No.
18,
Clauso
The Court of Appeals denied him a
The electronic dockets in Clauso v. Beyers, 88-2337 (JFG)
was created when the federal court system transitioned from hard
cony filings co electronic records, long after Clauso v. Beyers
was terminared.
As a result, che electronic docket in Beyers
does flO
provide this Court with the specifics of Chief Judge
Gerrys decision.
However, the time-line of Clausos many
actions in state courts and in this District strongly suggests
that Clausos petitIon was dismissed by Chief Judge Gerry as
esstea
state co:s
certificate of appealability on January 22,
See
5.
,
Docket Entry No.
2001.
19.
Clausos last Section 2254 application was filed
on June 26,
Action No.
2003.
See Clauso v.
03-3090
Judges Stanley R.
who presided,
(ELW)
,
Docket Entry No.
Chesler and Freda L.
in turn,
See
,
1.
Wolfson,
over that proceeding,
dismissed Clausos petition with prejudice,
untimely.
Civil
Hendricks,
Docket Entry Nos.
as
17 and 18.
The Court of Appeals denied him a certificate of
appealability on April 21,
Entry No.
B.
2006.
See id.,
Docket
22.
In addition to the above-listed habeas matters,
commenced at least
Clauso
ten civil rights actions in this
District.
1.
While still serving the prison term ensuing from
his first conviction,
1983 action,
Clauso commenced a Section
which was terminated by Chief Judge
It appears that Clauso’s limitations period expired during
application for post-conviction relief was filed.
However,
having no immediate access to the now-archived decisions rendered
by Judmes Chesier and Wolfson, this Court notes that: (a) this
observation is not a conclusive finding; and (b) it has no direct
imoact on the analysis at hand.
Garrett B.
Clauso v,
2.
Brown,
Jr.
Koeinqfest,
on April 3,
85-2589
1990.
(GEB)
See
.
Less than a month prior to his second conviction,
Clauso commenced another Section 1983 action.
Clauso v.
(WGB)
.
Bassler,
Stillwell,
Civil Action No,
Judges Stanley S.
presiding,
See
88-3574
Brotman and William G.
in turn,
over that action,
dismissed Clauso’s challenges by granting
defendants’
motion for summary judgment,
Docket Entry No.
57,
and the Court of Appeals
affirmed that decision on June 25,
Docket Entry No.
3.
While Clauso v.
Judge Bassler,
See id.,
Stiliwell was still pending before
Clauso commenced yet another civil
Clauso v.
No.
Judge Mary L.
Judge Brown,
1992.
60.
rights action.
91-4109
see id.,
(MLC),
presiding,
Ortiz,
in turn,
Civil Action
Cooper and Chief
over that matter,
dismissed Clauso’s claims by ruling upon
defendants’
motions and,
Rule 12(b) (6)
and summary judgment
shortly thereafter,
application for reconsideration.
denied Clauso’s
id.,
Docket
The basis for that termination
is not immediately
apparent from the docket existing on the Public Access to Court
Electronic Records (ACER) svstem, as PACER was created many
ears after Clauso v. Koeinaiesc was terminated.
Entry Nos.
8,
52 and 55.
Qrtiz was
Clauso v.
conclusively terminated on December 5,
,
4.
Docket Entry No.
While Clauso v.
55.
Ortiz and the appeal in Clauso v,
Stiliwell were still pending,
next Section 1983 action,
Action No.
1996.
97-5839
Clauso commenced his
Clauso v,
Morton,
Civil
Judge Cooper dismissed
(MLC).
Clauso’s challenges by granting defendants’
motions,
12(b) (6)
33 and 51,
see
,
Rule
Docket Entry Nos.
25,
and directed the Clerk not to accept
any further submissions from Clauso.
Docket Entry No.
46.
Upon Clauso’s appeal,
the
Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Cooper’s
determinations.
See id.,
The Court of Appeals’
entered on May 2,
5,
While Clauso v.
Docket Entry No.
56.
decision to that effect was
2002.
Morton was pending before Judge
Cooper,
Clauso initiated one more Section 1983
action,
Clauso v.
Alfred J.
matter,
Lechner,
Lazzaro,
Jr.,
00-1838
(AJL)
.
presiding over that
dismissed Clauso’s challenges by granting
defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Docket Entry Nos.
appeal,
Judge
36 and 37.
Upon Clauso’s
the Court of Appeals affirmed Judge
The Court of ADpeals mandate
Lechner’s decision.
2003.
to that effect was issued on July 10,
id.,
6.
Docket Entry No.
See
56.
Having just initiated Clauso v.
Lazzaro,
and only
one month after Judge Coopers dismissal of Clauso
v.
Morton,
Clauso commenced yet another Section
1983 action,
00-3131
No,
See Clauso v.
Switaj,
Civil Action
Judge Cooper directed
(MLC).
administrative termination of that matter for
Clausos failure to prepay his filing fee
the alternative,
7.
Yet,
in
for his failure to duly apply for
forma pauperis status)
No.
(or,
.
See id.,
Docket Entry
1.
while Clauso v.
Lazzaro was still proceeding
before Judge Cooper,
Clauso commenced one more
Section 1983 action,
Clauso v.
Action No.
01-4502
(MLC)
.
Brooks,
Civil
Judge Cooper dismissed
Clauso’s claims in part upon conducting sua sponte
review,
see id.,
Docket Entry No.
5,
Clauso’s motions for reconsideration,
16,
Docket Entry Nos.
denied
see id.,
and administratively
terminated that matter in light of Clauso’s
attempt to file an interlocutory appeal.
Docket Entry No.
33.
7
See id.,
The Court of Appeals denied
Clausos application for lack of appellate
jurisdiction,
See id,,
8.
and no further litigation ensued.
Docket Entry No.
On June 23,
2010,
Clauso commenced one more
Section 1983 action,
petition.
38.
styling it as a Section 2254
Clauso v. Warden,
see also id.,
Docket Entry No.
10-3816
2
(SRC);
(re
characterizing Clausos submission into a civil
complaint and denying Clauso in forma pauperis
status)
.
Judge Stanley R.
Clauso v, Warden,
Chesler, presiding over
instructed Clauso that claims
challenging conditions of confinement cannot be
raised by means of a habeas application,
Docket Entry No.
2,
at 1,
days from February 14,
see id.,
and allowed Clauso 30
2011,
to either prepay the
filing fee of $350 or to submit Clauso’s j forma
pauperis application
(which would allow Clauso to
proceed without prepayment of fees but with
assessment of monthly charges toward his full
payment of this $350 filing fee)
.
jç at 3-4.
More than four months after Judge Chesler’s
issuance of the aforesaid order,
a $5 payment,
i.e.,
Clauso submitted
the filing fee applicable to
habeas actions having no connection to his Clauso
Judge Chesler’s ruling on
v. Warden challenges.
that submission is still pending.
9.
Shortly prior to the commencement of Clauso v.
Clauso initiated yet another Section 1983
Warden,
matter, which is currently pending before this
Court:
(CCC)
Clauso v.
Specifically,
.
Civil Action No.
Glover,
on October 19,
Civil Action No.
March 1,
2011,
09-5306,
Clauso
2010,
filed a § 1983 complaint challenging,
again,
See Clauso v.
conditions of confinement.
09-5306
Glover,
1.
Docket Entry No.
Judge Michael A.
Shipp,
his
On
then acting
as a Magistrate Judge assigned to that matter,
directed appointment of pg bono counsel to
Docket Entry No.
Clauso.
30,
2011,
Esq.
44.
On June
that action was reassigned from Judge
Chesler to the undersigned.
No.
35.
On March 26,
(ilPotterfl)
,
2012,
Docket Entry
See
Richard G.
Potter,
made appearance on behalf of
Clauso and assumed representation of Clausos
legal interests in that action.
Entry No.
54.
However,
See j,
nine days prior to
becoming represented by Potter,
Clauso filed a pg
se application in Clauso v. Glover,
No,
09-5306,
Docket
Civil Action
entitled “Petition for the Great Writ
of Habeas Corpus
No,
[5]
See j,
2254.
Docket Entry
Because the aforesaid filing presented a
56.
mix of unspecified civil rights claims and
seemingly new habeas challenges,
explained to Clauso,
this Court
in great detail,
the
distinction between habeas and civil rights
the workings of habeas and civil
actions,
procedure rules and the pleading requirements
posed by Rules 8,
Entry No.
Dist.
59;
18 and 20.
See id.,
accord Clauso v.
at *2_8
LEXIS 89711,
Clover,
(D,N.J.
Docket
2012 U.S.
June 26,
2012)
In order to enable Clauso’s good faith litigation
of his unspecified civil rights and seemingly new
habeas challenges,
this Court directed the Clerk
to create two new matters for Clauso,
i.e.,
civil rights action and a habeas action,
ordered Clauso
--
f cc in those action
each such action,
and
in the event Clauso wished to
litigate such challenges
pauperis status)
a
--
to prepay his filing
(or duly apply for
forma
and submit an amended pleading in
asserting the challenges
relevant to the nature of each particular matter,
See id.
at *9l5,
this Court’s order,
The Clerk,
duly complying with
opened two new dockets for
Clauso,
namely,
Matter”),
Clauso v.
Civil Action No.
Glover
12-3969
Section 2254 habeas action),
(“New Civil Matter”)
(CCC)
II.
/
(“New Habeas
(CCC)
(a
and Clauso v.
Civil Action No.
Does
12-3971
(a Section 1983 civil rights action)
In response to this Courts aforesaid order and the Clerks
actions,
A.
Clauso made the following submissions:
In his New Habeas Matter,
he duly submitted his filing
fee of $5.00 but did not file his amended petition.
,
B.
generally, New Habeas Matter,
In his New Civil Matter,
filing fee of $350.00,
complaint.
III. As a result,
A.
See,
Docket.
Clauso duly submitted his
but he did not file his amended
generally, New Civil Matter,
Docket.
this Court:
Issued an order in the New Habeas Matter allowing
Clauso additional time to submit his amended petition
and directing the Clerk to provide Clauso with another
blank Section 2254 petition form.
Matter,
B.
Docket Entry No.
4
New Habeas
(entered on August 17,
Issued an order in the New Civil Matter allowing Clauso
additional time to submit his amended complaint and
directing the Clerk to provide Clauso with another
blank civil complaint form,
Docket Entry No.
4
(entered on August 16,
conjunction with the same,
1.
See New Civil Matter,
2012).
In
this Court:
scrupulously re-explained to Clauso the workings
of Rules 18 and 20,
as well as Rule 8,
as
clarified by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v,
Igbal,
556 US.
662
(2009),
and detailed by the
Court of Appeals in Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside,
F.3d 203
2.
(3d Cir,
578
2009);
stressed that Clausos desire to ‘just
go
home was not amenable to litigation in either a
civil action or a habeas matter,
as the judicial
branch lacks the mandate to direct clemency
release;
3.
and
emphasized that prepayment of the applicable
filing fee in no way assures one success on the
s
1
merits
(as all matters are resolved in accordance
with the governing legal principles,
the facts alleged,
as applied to
while collection of the filing
fee is merely an administrative measure having no
impact on the substantive outcome of any
litigation)
This Court observed as follows:
in the event [Clauso], mistakenly believing
that he can obtain any form of relief by
simply paying the $350 fee in [the New Civil
Matter] and/or by paying the $5 fee in [the
12
New Habeas Matter] , submitted these monies
without having a viable claim, [Clauso] shall
inform this Court of his mistake in writing,
and the Court will direct the Clerk to simply
remit these erroneously prepaid funds back to
Plaintiff.
The Court notes that: (a) no
sanction of any kind would ensue from
[Clausos] filing of such written statement,
since [Clauso!s] error appears bona fide and
committed in good faith belief that a mere
act of prepayment of filing fee would qualify
him for relief; and (b) the judiciary has no
interest in collecting filing fees in
connection with actions litigants have no
intent to litigate, and it would be
inequitable to deprive [Clauso], a confined
individual whose financial resources are
likely to be scarce, from the funds he might
have paid in error.
New Civil Matter,
IV.
Docket Entry No.
In response to this Court clarifications,
s
t
four letters in Clauso v.
(CCC)
A.
(Docket Entries Nos.
67
-
at 7,
Civil Action No.
70)
.
[Clauso]
n.5.
Clauso filed
09-5306
These letters:
indicate Clausos belief that ‘the State ha[d]
to keep
B.
Clover,
4,
no right
in prison”;
hint at Clausos apparent displeasure with being held
in segregated confinement;
poetic licence;
D,
state that the aforesaid
paperwork
is intended for
F,
assert a slew of challenges to Clauso’s conviction,
maintaining that he did not have a pre-sentencing
report executed;
F.
and
alleges new claims regarding Clauso’s conditions of
confinement,
asserting that he is being beaten by
prison officials.
See id,
(noting Clausots belief that his “soul mate” must
have written to this Court,
referring to Clauso himself as
an “old dog,” referring to this Court as Clauso’s “lady
judge,” promising to “write
[this Court]
a poem,” stating
s
1
that “God calls” on Clauso, making reference to Clauso
endeavor at “seeking peace and heaven,” asserting that,
as a
result of Clausos offense underlying his current
confinement “no one was hurt or injured,” and informing the
Court that Clauso was “good with the Creator and
Lord
Jesus Christ”)
V.
Finally,
on September 7,
2012,
the Clerk received yet one
more complaint from Clauso, which arrived unaccompanied by
either the filing f cc or a duly executed
Lagano,
12-5601
forma pauperis
Docket
application,
See Clauso v.
Entry No,
Naming six different persons as defendants in
1,
that matter,
A.
asserts,
(CCC),
that latest complaint:
simultaneously,
to remove {Clauso]
that Clausos warden “refused
from a cell flooded with human
waste” and that Clausos warden directed Clauso’s
transfer to another cell,
which Clauso found to be
freezing cold” during June and July of 2012;
B.
alleges that a prison guard is beating Clauso;
C.
states that another prison official took all of
Clauso’ s clothing;
D,
claims that Clauso was left without food by yet another
prison official,
E.
etc.; and
concludes with a request for relief in the form of this
Court’s order “releas[ing Clauso]
he has)
been since June 9,
from the hole
[where
20l2.”
Id.
VI.
To the extent Clauso’s letters docketed in Clauso v.
Clover,
Civil Action No.
67 and
68,
09-5306
(CCC),
as Docket Entry Nos.
are intended to serve as a motion for reconsideration,
such motion is granted in form and denied in substance.
6
That request for relief is accompanied by Clauso’s
promise that, in the event this Court would not find a violation
of Clauso’s civil rights, Clauso’s “sons and daughter [would]
bring the deed
that has been in [Clauso’s] family since
1914 [to the Court to prove that such deed allows for possession
of] 30 acres in South Jersey.”
See Clauso v. Lagano, 12-5601
Docket Entry No. 1, at 5,
(CCC),
.
.
.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
has leld that a litigant’s motion for reconsideration should be
litigant is seeking a reconsideration of) addresses the merits
rather than the mere procedural propriety or lack thereof
of
that motion,
See Pena-Ruiz v. Solorzano, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS
12436, at *23, n,1 (3d Cir. 2008). However, the very fact of the
—
-
indicate that he has filed numerous motions for
reconsideration and thus is likely to be familiar with the
governing legal standard,
the same warranted.
the Court finds a brief review of
A motion for reconsideration is a
device of limited utility.
There are only four grounds upon
which a motion for reconsideration may be granted:
(a)
to
correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the
judgment was based;
(b)
to present newly-discovered or
previously unavailable evidence;
7
injustice; and
(d)
(c)
to prevent manifest
to accord the decision to an intervening
courts review does not prevent the court performing such
reconsideration analysis (of the original application, as
supplanted by the points raised in the motion for
reconsideration) from reaching a disposition identical
either
in its rationale or in its outcome, or in both regards
to the
courts decision previously reached upon examination of the
original application.
See
—
—
In the context of a motion to reconsider, the term
‘manifest injusticeu
[generally
means that the Court
overlooked some dispositive factual or legal matter that was
(D1LJ. Aug.
Zlotnicki,
30,
2007),
779 F2d 906,
making the definition an overlap with the
909
(3d Cir,
1985)
,
that is,
the need
is direct, obvious, and observable.
Tenn, Prot. & Advocacy,
Inc. v. Wells, 371 F3d 342, 348 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Blacks
“
Law Dictionary 974 (7th ed, 1999))
[M] ost cases [therefore, I
use the term manifest injustice to describe the result of a
.
H
C)
CD
Cl
CD
C)
CD
C)
0)
CD
C)
C)
H-
CD
C)
C)
CO
Cl
H-
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
H
Cl
CD
C)
c-C
CD
C)
C)
Cl
HCl
Cl
CD
Cl
CD
CD
*
—
CD
CD
H-
Cl
CD
C)
C)
C)
C)
CD
C)
C)
C)
c-C
H-
Cl
CD
C)
CD
CD
H-
C)
CD
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
Cl
CD
Cl
C)
C)
CD
CD
C)
Cl
-
C)
CD
CD
CD
Cl
C)
C)
H
CD
CD
C)
CC)
CD
CD
Q
(-i
CD
CD
C)
C)
C)
H-
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
CD
Cl
C)
C)
CD
C)
H-
H
C)
C)
c-C
CD
H-
Cl
C)
C)
C)
C)
CD
C)
C)
CD
CD
C)
C)
c-C
H-
C)
C)
0
C)
CD
CD
C)
CO
C)
CD
c-C
CD
CD
Cl
CD
C)
CC)
C)
o
H
—.
CD
C)
CD
CD
C)
CD
C)
H
C)
C)
HH
H
C)
C)
CD
0
C)
C)
C)
CD
C)
=
c-C
C)
C)
C)
CD
C)
H-
Cl
CD
H
c-C
HCl
CD
CD
C)
CD
C)
C)
CD
c-C
cC
CD
ci
C)
C)
Cl
H
0
C)
CD
C)
H
kC)
C)
C)
CD
Cy
CD
C)
CD
CD
Li)
CD
*
U
*
1’)
---S
C))
CC)
CD
—
CD
C)
CX)
Cl
CO
C)
0)
0)
Cl)
0)
(A)
H
CX)
Cl
c-C
C))
C)
CD
C)
C)
CD
H
Cl
CD
CD
0)
C)
0
H
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
-*
CD
CD
0
H
*
C
U
-
CC)
C)
01
CO
<1
C)
0)
0)
Cl)
CC)
CX)
C)
—
C)
CD
C)
CC)
CD
C)
CD
CD
Q
—
-.
H
CD
CD
CD
*
C)
H-
C)
Cl
(A)
P—.
CX)
Ui
H
Cl
(A)
0)
w
C)
Cl
—
Cl
h1
CD
-
CD
CC)
H
C-i
Z
U
-
CD
C)
CX)
cr1
ø
CC)
0)
CD
0)
CD
CD
Cl
c-C
C)
(-0
Cl
C)
Cl
C)
c-C
CD
Cl
CD
C)
CD
CD
H
H
C)
-
Ci)
CD
*
C)
0)
0)
CD
CC)
CX)
CC)
0
-*
C)
C)
Cl
C)
CD
H-
C)
CD
Cl
HCD
CO
HC)
c-C
C)
H-
*
Cl
H-
Cl)
CD
CD
Cl
0)
C)
0
C)
CD
0)
H-
CD
C)
CD
H-
C)
C)
HCD
H-
C)
Cl
CD
CD
—
ct
C)
C)
0
C)
c-C
C)
H-
C)
CD
c-C
Cl
CD
0)
Cl
H
C)
CD
Cl
0
c-C
CD
C)
H-
C)
CD
Cl
0
C)
C)
Cl
C)
CO
C)
0
CD
c-C
CD
0)
C)
CD
CO
C)
CD
CD
Cl
CD
CD
C)
C)
CD
-
0
C)
c-C
H-
CD
C)
CD
Cl
H-
CD
C)
C)
C)
C)
CD
0
C)
C-i
C)
C)
c-C
H-
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
CD
0)
CD
c-C
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
Cl)
C)
Cl
CD
C)
C)
C)
C)
H-
CD
Cl
CD
c-C
Cl
Hc-C
C)
c-C
CD
C)
C)
CD
Cl)
cc)
C)
CD
CD
H-
Cl
CD
C)
CD
C)
—
c-C
C)
CD
CD
c-C
C)
C)
0
C)
H
—
H
CD
Cc)
CD
4
C
Z
CC)
CC)
-
CD
0
*
C)
0)
0)
Cl)
0)
CC)
CD
CD
—
H
C)
C)
C)
CD
c-C
C)
C)
C)
C)
CD
C)
C)
0)
0)
C)
C)
C)
CD
c-C
0
C)
CD
0
Z
HH-
CD
H-
C)
Cl
CD
C)
Li)
H
H
H-
C)
C)
c-C
0
C)
C)
0
C)
C)
C)
0)
C)
Hc-C
CD
CO
C)
H-
Cl
C)
CD
CD
C)
Cl
C)
CD
CD
C)
CD
H-
CD
CD
0
C)
C)
H-
C)
H-
1
C-
c-C
CD
Cl
HCD
CD
CD
C’
C)
C)
HCD
H-
C)
C)
H-
c-C
C)
C)
C)
C)
CD
Cl
c-C
-<
CC)
Cl
Cl
CD
CD
C)
H
C)
C)
C)
C)
CD
C)
CD
C)
C)
CD
H
Cl
0
CD
Cl
CD
C)
C)
CD
C)
CD
c-C
c-C
C)
CD
Cl
CD
C)
c-C
C)
CD
H
CD
C)
CD
Hc-C
H-
C)
CD
0)
H-
Cl
c-C
CD
Cl
c-C
C)
0
Cl
CD
CD
c-C
C)
C)
c-C
CD
C)
C5
C)
CC)
H-
C)
0
C)
CD
-
c-C
C)
C)
CD
C)
C)
CD
CD
C)
CO
c-C
C)
C)
C)
0)
0)
CD
H
0
CD
C)
C)
CD
Cl
H-
C)
CD
Cl
C)
C)
C)
CD
C)
CD
HCD
Cl
C)
H
C)
CD
C)
C)
c-C
CD
CD
CD
0)
C)
C)
c-C
0
C)
CD
C)
c-C
Cl
0
C)
C)
CD
H
C)
C)
C)
CD
C)
C)
CD
CD
c-C
CD
h-
H-
C)
CD
C)
c-C
C)
CD
C)
C)
C)
C)
o
rt
C)
CD
H-
C)
C)
c-C
H-
C)
CD
Cl
CD
H-
CD
C)
C)
CD
C)
C)
C)
C)
Cl
C)
0
c-C
H-
C)
CD
Cl
C)
C)
CD
CD
C)
0)
0)
ç)
Cl
CD
ct
—S
CX)
CD
CD
H
-
H
—
H
H
H-
Cl)
*
0)
CD
C)
-
Cl
CD
C)
Cl
CD
*
C)
C)
CD
C)
-
H
CD
C))
01
C)
H-
C)
Cl
W
-
CD
CC)
C)
CC)
0
CD
Cl
CC)
*
-o
—J
C)
-
H-
H-
C)
Cl
C)
c-C
C)
N
H
*
C)
*
C)
C)
CD
C)
C)
Cr)
CD
C)
CD
C)
H
CD
CD
CD
CD
—
CC)
(11
CC)
H
Cl
CD
Cl
CC)
-
H
C)
-
CC)
CD
CD
co
Cl
C)
C)
CD
C)
C)
C)
j
CD
C)
Cl
C)
CD
H-
CD
C)
C)
C)
Li)
H
CD
CD
Cl
CD
C)
[i)
C)
CD
C))
CD
CC)
CD
C)
CC)
CD
C)
h-C)
g-
CD
C)
HH
H
)C
C))
H-
C)
C)
Cl
C)
c-C
Cr
-
c-C
CO
Cl
C)
CD
CD
H
C)
CD
C)
Cl
H
H
CD
CD
(1)
C)
CD
H
C)
Li)
HH
H-
0)
C)
CD
C)
CD
C)
H-
CD
CC)
CD
C)
C)
Assisted Living,
Cas.
(E.D.
Co. v.
Pa.
996 F.
Supp.
at 442;
Diversified Indus,,
1995)
Inc.,
884 F.
Supp.
937,
943
(H[M]otions for reconsideration should be
granted sparingly’); Edward H. Bohlin,
Inc.,
also Continental
6 F.3d 350,
355
(5th Cir.
1993)
Co. v.
Banning Co.,
(a district court
°has
considerable discretion in deciding whether to reopen a case
under Rule 59(e)
his factiess,
n)
Here,
.
Clausos letters:
(a)
state only
self-serving conclusion that he is in a
wrongful confinement;
express nothing but Clauso’s
(b)
unactionable emotions; but
(c)
have no relevance to this
Court’s directive to submit amended pleadings asserting
Clauso’s habeas and/or civil rights challenges.
Clauso’s
letters cannot merit vacatur of this Court’s prior orders
directing commencement of the New Habeas Matter and
Civil Matter and Clauso’s filing of amended pleadings in
these matters in the event Clauso believes he has new
meritorious claims to litigate.
VII. While Clauso’s letters docketed in Clauso v. Glover,
Action No.
09-5306
(CCC),
as Docket Entry Nos.
67 and 68
have no bearing on the issues litigated in Clauso v.
Civil Action No,
09-5306
Civil
Glover,
8
(CCC), these two letters and,
The Court reminds Clauso that Mr. Potter was appointed to
represent Clausos legal interests in Clauso v. Glover, Civil
Action No, 09-5306 (CCC)
Clauso would be well advised to
entrust the litigation process to Mr. Potter and refrain from
making future pp se submissions in that matter,
.
18
esrecially,
Clauso’s letter docketed in Clauso v.
Civil Action No.
09-5306
(CCC)
,
Glover,
as Docket Entry No.
69,
appear relevant to Clausos proceedings in the New Habeas
Matter and New Civil Matter.
At this juncture,
both the
content and the spirit of Clausos letters strongly suggest
that Clauso has no viable habeas claim to litigate.
Rather,
it appears that h.e simply laments over the outcome of his
state criminal proceedings and denial of his federal habeas
application as untimely,
and Clauso seems to conflate,
either unintentionally or by design,
his conditions-of-
confinement civil rights claims with his request for habeas
relief.
A.
as
However,
The Court is mindful of Clausos emotions.
this Court already pointed out in its prior ruling,
the
mandate of the Article III judiciary is limited to,
and
resolution of
only to,
U.S.
Const.
U.S.
1,
7
Haworth,
Art.
III,
§ 2;
or
300 U.S.
227,
oartes a o an erse
240
Controversies.”
accord Spencer v.
(1998); Aetna Life Ins.
definite and concrete,
words,
Cases
(1937)
Co.
Kemna,
See
523
of Hartford v.
(a lawsuit
must be
touchino the leqal relations of
eoa_ terests
I’ oter
there must be an actual dispute between adveise
litigants concerning an issue where there is a
substantial likelihood that a decision by a federal
rendered within that courts mandate, would
court,
bring about some sort of desired change or effect,
U.S. Natl Bank of Or. v.
Inc.,
508 U.S.
439,
446
Ins. Agents of Am.,
Indep.
(1993)
(noting that the suit
must pursue “an honest and actual antagonistic
[party]
assertion of rights by one
that these “valuable legal rights
against another” and
[would]
be directly
affected to a specific and substantial degree” by a
decision on the matter by a federal court)
quotations omitted)
(internal
No federal judge has a mandate to
.
act upon their emotions or grant litigants meritless
claims
(even if these claims are stated with great
eloquence,
emotion or resort to poetic licence)
Clauso’s “poetic license”
relief.
See Ronald A.
letters are not a basis for
Cass,
Judging: Norms and
Incentives of Retrospective Decision-Making,
Rev.
941,
944
(1995)
(“
Thus,
.
75 B.U. L.
[A popular caricature]
of
judicial decision-making is extreme legal realism,
which supposes that judges
decisions depend on
what the judge ate for breakfast
decision”)
(quoting Jerome Frank,
Mind 118-59,
207,
264-84
(1930))
.
.
.
on the morning of a
Law and the Modern
Simply put,
dry
facts stated in a clear and concise pleading speak
volumes for the purposes of any legal proceeding,
while
eloquent poetic 11 are invariably dismissed as
nothings
pure rhetoric.
Therefore,
this Court strongly urges
Clauso to reduce his future submissions,
if any such
submissions are made in the New Habeas Matter and/or
New Civil Matter,
(CCC),
(D.N.J.
Litig.,
v.
Laqano,
12-5601
to simple statements of fact and legal claims.
Accord Imoore v.
at *16
or in Clauso v.
Gasbarro,
May 24,
180 F,3d 525,
Ernst & Young,
2012)
534
List.
2012 U.S.
(citing Advanta Corp.
(3d Cir.
901 F.2d 624,
1999),
627
‘the who,
what,
when,
where,
Sec.
quoting DiLeo
(7th Cir.
“for the observation that a pleading must
indicate
LEXIS 73114,
1990)
[merely]
and how:
the
first paragraph of any newspaper story’”)
B.
The letters docketed in Clauso v.
No.
09-5306
(CCC),
as Docket Entry Nos.
the submission in Clauso v.
Docket Entry No.
1,
Glover,
Lagano,
Civil Action
67 and 68,
12-5601
and
(CCC),
especially if assessed in light of
Clausos failure to submit an amended pleading in the
New Habeas Matter,
strongly suggest that Clauso has no
viable habeas claim to litigate.
Accordingly,
it
appears equitable for this Court to direct the Clerk to
remit Clausos filing fees in the New Habeas Matter.
However,
out of abundance of caution,
the Court will
allow Clauso one last extension of time to submit an
9
amended pleading in that action,
VIII, While Clausos submissions seem to indicate that he has no
vialle habeas claim to litigate,
such filings do suggest
that Clauso might be striving to articulate civil rights
challenges which,
if reduced to plain English statements
could
meeting the requirements posed by Rules 18 and 20,
amount to plausible claim(s)
However,
as of now,
within the meaning of Rule 8.
Clausos patchy submissions assert a
panoply of unrelated transactions,
each involving a
different defendant and leaving the Court to guess the
specific facts at issue in his various claims.
this juncture,
any,
it is entirely unclear:
(a)
Indeed,
which claims,
at
if
asserted in ClausoTs latest submissions are intended to
operate as amended claims for the purposes of Clausots
Civil Matter
f cc) ;
and
(b)
(with regard to which Clauso prepaid the filing
which claims,
litigated in Clauso v.
if any, were meant to be
Lagano,
12-5601
(CCC), where no
filing fee was received and no j forma pauperis status was
In the event Clauso elects to make such a habeas
submission, he should accompany the same with the applicable
This
filing fee(s) or valid in forma pauperis application(s)
Courts directive to the Clerk to remit the funds to Clauso shall
not be construed as the CourtTs statement that Clauso would be
allowed to litigate any habeas challenges without prepayment of
forma
the applicable filing fee or without properly obtaining
phuperis status.
.
either sought or granted’°
In other words,
as of now,
the
Court cannot guess how many civil claims Clauso wishes to
litigate and in which actions.
challenges,
and 20,
The panoply of Clausos
if assessed under the requirements of Rules 18
well exceed two sets of claims.
Nonetheless,
the
Court is obligated to allow Clauso an opportunity to be the
master of his claims.
Thus,
Clauso may:
(a)
select the
transactionally-related or related-by-defendant allegations
he wishes to prosecute in the New Civil Matter and/or in
Clauso v.
Lagano,
12-5601
(CCC);
and
(b)
reflect on whether
he wishes to prepay the applicable filing fee in either or
in both of these actions
(or whether he wishes to seek in
forma paueris status in either or in both of these
matters)
IT IS,
therefore,
ORDERED that
Action No.
12-3 971
12-3969
(CCC),
on this
day ofpc
the Clerk shall reopen Clauso v.
(CCC),
and Clauso v.
Does,
,
Glover,
2012,
Civil
Civil Action No.
by making a new and separate entry on the dockets
of each of these two matters,
reading “CIVIL CASE REOPENED;” and
it is further
To complicate the matters further, Clausos submissions
are executed in handwriting that is difficult to comprehend.
While no pg se litigant is required to type their pleading, a
handwritten pleading must be fully readable.
Therefore, the
Court urges Clauso to carefully and clearly hand-print his
pleadings, writing only on the lines provided.
Clauso shall
avoid writing on the margins or scribbling between the lines.
23
ORDERED that the letters filed in Clauso v.
Action No,
09-5306
as Docket Entry Nos.
(CCC),
Clover,
Civil
67 and 68,
are
construed as motions for reconsideration of this Court’s prior
order
(docketed in that matter as Docket Entry No.
59);
and it is
further
ORDERED that Clause’s motions for reconsideration are
granted in form and denied in substance,
order,
docketed in Clauso v.
(CCC),
as Docket Entry No.
Clover,
Civil Action No.
Clover,
59
and this Court’s prior
Civil Action No.
09-5306
(and replicated in Clauso v.
12-3969
(CCC),
Civil Action No.
12-3971
remain in force;
and in Clauso v.
Does,
and it is further
as Docket Entry No.
(CCC),
2)
shall
ORDERED that the Clerk shall remit to Clause the filing fee
of $5.00 submitted in connection with Clauso v.
Action No.
12-3969
(CCC);
Clover,
Civil
and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall remit to Clauso the filing fee
of $350.00 submitted in connection with the submissions made in
Clauso v.
Does,
Civil Action No.
12-3 971
(CCC);
and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall administratively terminate
Clauso v.
Does,
Clover,
Civil Action No.
Civil Action No,
12-3971
12-3969
(CCC),
(CCC),
and Clauso v.
by making a new and
separate entry on the dockets of each of these two matters,
reading “CIVIL CASE TERMINATED;” and it is further
24
ORDERED that Clauso may have Clauso v,
No,
12-3969
3971
(CCC),
matters:
(CCC),
and/or Clauso v,
Civil Action
Civil Action No,
12-
reopened in the event Clauso submits in those
(a)
his amended pleading(s)
and Habeas Rule 2
(applicable to civil complaints)
habeas petitions),
stating the facts and
in accordance with Rule 8
challenges clearly and concisely,
(applicable to
without resort to generalities, poetic
undue rhetoric,
licence,
Does,
Glover,
etc,,
threats,
but rather carefully
reflecting on the guidance provided in this Courts prior
determinations issued in his matters;
filing fee(s)
and
(b)
the applicable
forma pauperis application(s); and it
or valid
is further
ORDERED that Clauso’s application to prosecute Clauso v.
Lagano,
12-5601
(CCC), j forma pauperis is denied.
is without prejudice,
and Clauso may seek j forma paueris
status in that matter by submitting a valid
application;
Such denial
forma puperis
and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall administratively terminate
Clauso v.
Lagano,
12-5601
(CCC),
by making a new and separate
entry on the dockets of that matter,
reading “CIVIL CASE
TERMINATED;H and it is further
ORDERED that Clauso may have Clauso v.
(CCC)
,
Lagano,
12-5601
reopened in the event he submits an amended complaint in
that action and accompanies the same with a valid
25
forma
pauperis application or with a filing fee of $350.00;
and it is
ORDERED Ihat Clausos amended pleadings in Clauso v. Does,
Czvil Acoion No.
(CCC),
12-3971
(CCC),
and in Clauso v.
Lagano,
12-5601
should be executed in accordance with the requirements of
Rules 18 and 20,
asserting only the claims that are properly
transactionally-related or related-by-defendant; and it is
further
ORDERED that all Clausos future filings must be executed in
a careful,
readable handwriting or typed;
ORDERED thac che Clerk shall serve,
and it is further
by regular U.S. mail,
copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order upon Clauso,
enclose in said mailing:
(b)
(a)
a
and shall
two blank civil complaint forms;’
1
a blank Section 2254 habeas petition form;
and
(c)
three
applications for confined individuals seeking to proceed
forma
2
pauperis;’ and it is finally
In the event Clauso believes that his allegations, even
though asserted in accordance with Rules 8, 18 and 20, cannot be
reduced to statements fitting the space allotted, Clauso shall
supplement his allegations by statements neatly hand-printed (or
typed) on the back of the page.
Clauso shall alert the Clerk to
the facc that his allegations are continued on the back of the
oaoe bu wricium
SEE OVER: ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS ON THE BACK OF
THIS PATE.
Olauso IS also reminded that, for cc purposes of
rIGhts challenges, Clauso shali specify the alleged
wromos each named defendant committed and detail the specific
facts of each such alleged wrong.
12
if the institutjonal
account of the petitioner exceeds
t210, the petitioner shall not be considered eligible to proceed
forma rauperis in a habeas matter.
See Local Civil Rule
26
ORDERED that no statement made in this Memorandum Opinion
and Order shall be construed as indicating withdrawal of this
Cours jurisdiction over any of the above-captioned matters.
Claire C. Cecchi
United States District Judge
31. 2c;
In contrast, in
Adkins v. E. I. DuPont Dc Nemours &
Co., Inc., 33.5 J.5. 331 1948), the Supreme Court clarified that
the district court enjoys discretion to determine whether the
ci the fees would be unduly burdensome upon a litigant
a civil riqhts action.
See id.; see also Kinney v.
Plymouth Rock Scuab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46 (1915)
27
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?