ARIAS v. STEWART

Filing 16

OPINION AND ORDER denying 11 Motion for Declaratory Judgment; denying 13 Motion for Declaratory Judgment ; denying 14 Motion for Leave to File. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed, and closing case. Signed by Chief Judge Jose L. Linares on 8/18/17. (sr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ANGELA ARIAS,
Plaintiff,

:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-337 (JLL)
OPINION & ORDER

V.

VERONICA STEWART, et al.,
Defendants.

LINARES, Chief District Judge

IT APPEARING THAT:
1.

The pro se plaintiff, Angela Arias, brings this action (hereinafter, “the Main

Action”) for what appears to be some form of relief related to a guardianship or visitation
matter that concerns her grandchild that either is being addressed, or has been addressed,
in a Pennsylvania state court.
2.

By an Order dated January 26, 2017 (hereinafter, “the First Order”), this

Court denied Arias’s in forina pauperis application, because Arias failed to: (a) declare
under penalty of perjury that the infonnation therein was true; (b) respond to a majority
of the application’s queries; and (c) provide complete and consistent responses
concerning her income. (ECF No. 3.) However, this Court denied the application in the
First Order without prejudice to Arias to either pay the filing fee or submit a revised
application within twenty days. (Id.)

3.

By an Order dated March 3, 2017 (hereinafter, “the Second Order”), this

Court administratively terminated the Main Action, because Arias failed to either file a
renewed in /?rma pauperis application or pay the required fee by the deadline set forth in
the First Order. (ECF No. 4.)
4.

On March 6, 2017, Arias paid the filing fee in response to the Second

Order. (ECF No. 5.) Thus, by an Order dated March 7, 2017 (hereinafter, “the Third
Order”), this Court reopened and reinstated the Main Action, and directed Arias to
proceed with the Main Action in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(ECF No. 6.)
5.

On April 6, 2017, even though this Court reinstated the Main Action by

operation of the Third Order, Arias brought a separate action (hereinafter, “the Separate
Action”) in the District of New Jersey for relief concerning what appears to be the same
guardianship or visitation matter. (See Complaint, Arias v. Stewart, No. 17-2628 (D.N.J.
Apr. 6,2017), ECF No. 1.) In the Separate Action, Arias filed an informcipauperis
application, even though Arias had demonstrated an ability to pay the required fee by
paying such fee in the Main Action. (id., ECF No. 1-1.) In addition, Arias filed a motion
for the appointment ofpro bono counsel. (Id., ECF No. 4.)
6.

By an Order dated April 24, 2017, which was the fourth order entered

concerning Arias’s claims, the Magistrate Judge denied Arias’s motion forpro bono
counsel in the Separate Action. (Id., ECF No. 5.)
7.

By an Order dated June 28, 2017 (hereinafter, “the Fifth Order”), this Court

2

notified Arias that the Main Action would be dismissed if Arias failed to file proof of
service with the Clerk of the Court in a timely fashion. (ECF No. 8.)
8.

Arias did not file proof of service in response to the Fifth Order. Instead,

Arias filed a motion that was styled as seeking a declaratory judgment (hereinafter, “the
First Declaratory Judgment Motion”). (ECF No. 9.)
9.

By an Order dated July 26, 2017 in the Separate Action (hereinafter, “the

Sixth Order”), this Court: (a) denied the informapauperis application therein; and (b)
dismissed the complaint therein without prejudice as being duplicative, and with leave to
Arias to file a new and proper amended complaint to assert all of her claims under the
Main Action. (See Order, Arias v. Stewart, No. 17-2628 (D.N.J. July 26, 2017), ECF No.
6.)
10.

By an Order also dated July 26, 2017 in the Main Action (hereinafter, “the

Seventh Order”), this Court: (a) extended the time for Arias to comply with the Fifth
Order (which concerned the filing of proof of service) to September 8, 2017; (b)
reiterated that Arias was required to file a new and proper amended complaint under the
Main Action; (c) ordered Arias to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10
when drafting and filing the aforementioned new amended complaint; and (d)
administratively terminated the First Declaratory Judgment Motion without prejudice.
(ECF No. 10.) This Court also noted in the Seventh Order that the F irst Declaratory
Judgment Motion was incomprehensible, and that Arias’s requests for relief therein were
indiscernible. (Id.)

j

11.

Rather than file a new and proper amended complaint in compliance with

the Sixth Order and the Seventh Order, Arias has now filed: (a) two separate motions that
are each styled as a “Motion for relief of declaratory judgment;” (b) two separate
petitions that are each styled as a “Petition for extraordinary writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

165 1(a),

§

2241 [and]

§

2254”; and (c) a motion that is styled as

a “Motion for leave to amend.” (ECF No. 11; ECF No. 12; ECF No. 13; ECF No. 14;
ECF No. 15.) Once again, this Court finds the contents of the aforementioned papers that
have been filed by Arias to be indiscernible.
12.

Arias has now failed to comply with several Orders issued by this Court

over the course of seven months. This Court has provided Arias with repeated
opportunities to set forth her claims in a clear and concise manner, but Arias has not
followed the aforementioned Orders and has repeatedly filed papers that do not comply
with the basic tenets of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At this juncture, after
carefully scrutinizing all of the papers that have been filed by Arias in the Main Action
and in the Separate Action, this Court cannot even completely discern the nature of the
relief that Arias is seeking. Furthermore, this Court is uncertain whether any of the
apparent defendants have been served with any of the papers that have been filed by
Arias.
13.

Thus, for Arias’s failure to comply with this Court’s Orders and with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Arias’s claims are dismissed.

4

_________

IT IS THEREFORE on this

day of August. 2017, ORDERED that

the plaintiffs separate motions that are each styled as a “Motion for relief of declaratory
judgment” (ECF No. 11 and ECF No. 13), the plaintiffs separate petitions that are each
styled as a “Petition for extraordinary writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
165 1(a),

§

2241 [and]

§

§

2254” (ECF No. 12 and ECF No. 15), and the plaintiffs motion

that is styled as a “Motion for leave to amend” (ECF No. 14) are DENIED; and it is
further
ORDERED that the plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that the action is CLOSED.

JOL. LINARES
/11ef Judge, United States District Court

5