XU v. KENEALLY et al

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 6 Motion for Default Judgment; granting 8 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 2/6/2014. (mmh)

I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

HUAFENG XU,
Civil Action No.:

Plaintiff,

13-cv-04026 (PGS)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

v.
KATHRYN KENEALLY and
MELISSA L. DICKEY,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on two motions. The first is Defendants’ motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (ECF No. 8), and a
cross-motion for default judgment (ECF No. 6).
The defendants are Assistant United States Attorneys who are employed by the Department of
Justice, Tax Division in Washington, DC. Mr. Xu alleges that in another lawsuit, that defendant’s
“notice through the CM/ECF system was not legally signed” because they “[used] their self-made
e-signatures but not following the CM/ECF policies.

.

.“

Mr. Xu describes the defendants’ responses in

the other law suit as “lies”, and seeks $2 million in damages, “because the defendants have been wasting
his Big Time.” (ECF No. 1).
While a complaint challenged under Rule 12(b)(6) “does not need detailed factual allegations,”
Xu’s obligation “to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle{ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Ati. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). The pleading standard “demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
misconduct, the complaint has alleged

—

but it has not ‘show[n]’

—

that the pleader is entitled to relief,”

and the complaint should be dismissed. Id. at 679. Here, Plaintiff does not meet this standard.

Generally, the Court rules require a clear plain statement of a claim of relief. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiffs case does not sufficiently provide same. Ordinarily, Plaintiffs are
granted an opportunity to amend their complaint to correct a deficiency. However, in this case,
to do so would be futile in light of the number of other similar nonsensical cases that have been
filed by Mr. Xu. They are:
Xu v. Magistrate Judge Arpert

New Jersey District Court Docket No. 1 4-cv-00083

Xu v. William Walsh

New Jersey District Court Docket No. 13-cv-05626
e

Xu v. Naqvi, et al.

New Jersey District Court Docket No. 12-cv-07844

Xu v. Waidron.

New Jersey District Court Docket No. 14-cv-82

On the cross-motion, Plaintiff brings a motion for default judgment. Based on the ruling above,
it is moot. Moreover, Defendants’ motion was timely filed as a response in lieu of an answer, and as such
there are no grounds for such relief.
ORDER
IT IS on this 6th day of February, 2014
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) is granted; and it further
ORDERED that the motion for default judgment (ECF No. 6) is denied.

Ph

PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.