Rossman v. Stelzel et al

Filing 12

ORDER finding as moot 7 Motion for Reconsideration; finding as moot 8 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 10 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration at Docket Entry 10 is DENIED, and his motions at Docket Entries 7 and 8 are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of this Order and to mark this case CLOSED. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 9/13/2012. C/M (Valle, Christine)

FILED 
CLERK 

9/13/2012 1:55 pm

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
LONG ISLAND OFFICE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------X
BRUD ROSSMAN,
Plaintiff,
-against-

ORDER
11-CV-4293(JS)(GRB)

WIESLAWA STELZEL, DIRECTOR, REAL
PROPERTY TAX SERVICE, SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY
GENERAL, ROBERT GATES, SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, DR. SAMUEL J. POTOLICCHIO,
DR. LINDA SAPIN, DR. PHILIP PULASKI,
JOHN DOE NUMBER 1, JOHN DOE NUMBER 2,
and JOHN DOE NUMBER 3,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Brud Rossman, pro se
20 Jerome Circle
Riverhead, NY 11901
For Defendants:

No appearances.

SEYBERT, District Judge:
On October 13, 2011, the Court sua sponte dismissed
pro se Plaintiff Brud Rossman’s Complaint as frivolous in that
it

failed

to

allegations.

contain

(See

Docket

factual
Entry

support
5

at

8.)

for
The

Plaintiff’s
Court

gave

Plaintiff thirty days to file an Amended Complaint, but he did
not do so.

Instead, he filed three motions for reconsideration

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.
10.)
Docket

(Docket Entries 7, 8,

The first and second are superseded by the third (see
Entry

10

at

1

(emphasizing

that

the

document

was

a

“further” amended Rule 60 motion)), and the third does not set
forth a basis for relief.

Among other things, Plaintiff argues

that the Court does not have the power to sua sponte dismiss a
Complaint before the 120-day period for service of process has
expired.

(See

generally

Docket

Entry

10.)

The

Court

may

dismiss frivolous actions sua sponte, Fitzgerald v. First E.
Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363 (2d Cir. 2000), and
Plaintiff has not provided any authority or persuasive argument
that the Court’s power is constrained by the 120-day service
period.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration at
Docket Entry 10 is DENIED, and his motions at Docket Entries 7
and

8

are

DENIED

AS

MOOT.

The

Clerk

of

the

Court

is

respectfully directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of this Order and
to mark this case CLOSED.
SO ORDERED.

/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

September
13 , 2012
Central Islip, New York

2