ROGERS v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al

Filing 53

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 49 Motion to Recusal, and dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint w/prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 4/4/18. (sr, )(N/M via certified mail #7011 3500 0000 6746 2422)

Not for Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

THOMAS ROGERS,
Plaint
Civil Action No. 16-8870 (JMV) (JBC)
V.

OPINION & ORDER

STATE OF NEW JERSEY and MAN WITH NJ
STATE TROOPER ID 7789,
Defendants.

John Michael Vazguez, U.S.D.J.

On February 8, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs
Complaint. D.E. 1, 48. The Court dismissed with prejudice the Complaint as to Defendant State
of New Jersey, but dismissed without prejudice as to Defendant Trooper Porch. D.E. 48. The
Court allowed Plaintiff thirty (30) days to file an Amended Complaint as to Trooper Porch,
indicating that otherwise the matter would be dismissed with prejudice. D.E. 48. Plaintiff has
failed to file an Amended Complaint as of the date of this Opinion and Order. Instead, he has
filed four letters on the docket for this matter.
On February 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed what the Court interprets to be a motion to
disqualify the undersigned. D.E. 49. Throughout, Plaintiff refers to himself as “The ‘rogers
court” and orders that Judge Vazquez to recuse himself “for showing an appearance of
partiality, an appearance of protecting ‘the wrongdoers,’ and usurpation of authority not granted
to him.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff complains that the Court has forced him to “represent the
incorporated U.S. person against my will.” Id. Plaintiff also states that the Court has “shown the

appearance of protecting the ‘wrongdoers” by “usurping the authority of the tribunal” and
holding extra-judicial proceedings. Plaintiff does not specify what those proceedings are.
A judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might
reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. §455(a). This includes situations in which he has a
“personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.” 28 U.S.C. §455(b)(1). The Third Circuit has
described this standard as one where a “reasonable person would question [the] judge’s
impartiality.” In re Gochin, 2018 WL 1391522, at *1 (3d Cir. Mar. 20, 2018). Plaintiff has
failed to meet the standard for recusal. The Court has no bias against Plaintiff nor in favor of
Trooper Porch. The State of New Jersey was dismissed pursuant to sovereign immunity under
the Eleventh Amendment. Although the Court was doubtful that Plaintiff could properly plead
allegations against Trooper Porch, it nevertheless peniiitted Plaintiff the opportunity to file an
Amended Complaint. Plaintiff did not avail himself of the opportunity, although he filed the
motion to recuse the undersigned well within the thirty-day timeframe allotted by the Court.
Plaintiffs motion to recuse is denied.
On February 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “Solemn Recognition of Mixed War.” D.E. 50.
In this document, Plaintiff claims that the “men and women of the United States and its various
corporate de facto agencies” have “repeatedly forced [him] to submit to their authority.” On
April 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “Correction of Record” to address his “Solemn Recognition of

Mixed War.” D.E. 51. The Court is unsure of what Plaintiff is asserting. Plaintiff appears to be
claiming that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court because he is a “sovereign citizen.”
Plaintiff, however, is the person who invoked the jurisdiction of the Court by filing the
Complaint. Thus, Plaintiff has taken diametrically opposed positions: he has availed himself of
the Court’s jurisdiction by filing suit while at the same time claiming that he is not subject to the

7

jurisdiction of the Court. Not only is Plaintiff wrong in his assertion that he is not subject to the
Court’s jurisdiction, his “Solemn Recognition of Mixed War” does not reflect a cognizable cause
of action or relief which the Court can grant.
On April 2, 2018, Plaintiff also filed a “Statement of Truth,” D.E. 52, which reads:
It is the belief of i that the only way the men and women of the
U.S. District Court can alter my claim, ignore my paperwork, and
act outside the law is if they are somehow representing me.
Let me make myself clear. Any man or woman, attorney, clerk,
judge, or otherwise who may think they are representing me is
FIRED!!!
This submission requires little discussion. The Court does not represent Plaintiff nor has the
Court ever indicated that it represents Plaintiff. Instead, the Court ruled on the pending motion
to dismiss, which the Court is duty bound to perform.
Plaintiff has failed to file an Amended Complaint within the thirty (30) days allotted, and
the subsequent filings to the Docket fail to address the deficiencies noted in the Court’s February
8, 2018 Opinion and Order. D.E. 48. For the above reasons, and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this 4th day of April, 2018,
ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for recusal, D.E.

is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint, D.E. 1, is DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is

further
ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall mail a copy of the Opinion and Order to
Plaintiff by regular mail and certified mail return receipt.
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

John PIichael Vazqu U..D.J.
3