ROY v. US GOVT AT WHITE HOUSE DC et al
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 02/03/2017. 02/06/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE LITIGANT.(nds)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KAMAL K. ROY,
U.S. GOVERNMENT AT WHITE HOUSE,
DC, et al.,
M E M O R A N D U M
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.
February 3, 2017
Plaintiff Kamal K. Roy (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro
se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
former President Barack H. Obama; numerous state and federal
governmental entities, several of which do not appear to exist;
and two individuals identified only by last name.1
dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and without
granting leave to amend.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for
Plaintiff’s complete list of defendants is the United
States Government at the White House; former President Barack H.
Obama; Mr. Donovan; North Shore et al.; the World Religions
Group; Borough Hall; the United States Department of Religions;
the United States Antitrust Land Will Illegal Help; Mr. Tribie;
Prayer of Connection of D.O.B.G.; the United States Supreme
Court; the Speaker of the House of Representatives; the United
States Senate; the County of Richmond, New York; and the United
States Department of the Treasury. ECF No. 1.
relief from the Court’s order under Federal Rule of Civil
For the reasons discussed below, the Court
will deny Plaintiff’s motion.
Plaintiff’s complaint consists of unintelligible
handwritten notes on a form complaint for a civil action,
followed by over a hundred pages of exhibits containing
additional handwritten notes on assorted documents.
See ECF No.
While Plaintiff’s complaint is unclear, it appears Plaintiff
may be attempting to assert claims based on the alleged
violation of his constitutional rights.
Plaintiff filed this action on June 22, 2015,2 together
with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
ECF No. 1.
The Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on June 29,
2015, but in the same order, dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint on
This is the thirteenth civil action Plaintiff has
filed in this Court over the past seven years. The complaints
in each of Plaintiff’s previous actions, which the Court
dismissed, also consisted of unintelligible handwritten notes on
various documents. See No. 13-4735, ECF Nos. 1, 2; No. 13-1908,
ECF Nos. 2, 3; No. 13-0216, ECF Nos. 2, 3; No. 12-7070, ECF Nos.
2, 3; No. 12-6240, ECF Nos. 2, 3; No. 12-5636, ECF Nos. 1-2, 2;
No. 12-5159, ECF No. 2; No. 12-4857, ECF Nos. 2, 3; No. 12-4152,
ECF Nos. 2, 3; No. 12-1371, ECF Nos. 2, 3; No. 11-5190, ECF Nos.
2, 3; No. 09-4851, ECF No. 2. Plaintiff filed appeals in three
of these cases, all of which were unsuccessful. See No. 134735, ECF No. 5 (dismissing appeal for failure to timely
prosecute); No. 12-4152, ECF No. 7 (affirming judgment); No. 121371, ECF No. 7 (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because appeal was untimely).
the basis that it is “rambling and incomprehensible, and fails
to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).”
ECF No 2.
The order stated that the complaint was dismissed “without
prejudice,” but then stated that Plaintiff “is not given leave
to amend because the Court finds that amendment would be
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the Court’s
order on August 6, 2015.
ECF No. 4.
On October 2, 2015, the
Third Circuit dismissed his appeal for failure to timely
prosecute insofar as Plaintiff failed to file a brief and
appendix as directed.
ECF No. 6.
On October 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant
motion, which he states is a “motion under rule FRCP 60B for new
trial” and “request change to order.”
ECF No. 7.
Pl.’s Rule 60(b) Mot.,
While Plaintiff’s motion, like his complaint, is
handwritten and unclear, he appears to argue that (1) the order
is defective because it does not list all of the names of the
parties, so it could not be served on the defendants; and (2)
the order violates his constitutional rights.
Id. at 1.
Plaintiff has attached several documents to his motion,
including (1) the Court’s June 29, 2015, order; (2) a letter he
sent to the Federal Election Commission asking to be registered
as a candidate for U.S. President; (3) a statement of the
nursing services provided by his managed long term care program;
and (4) correspondence regarding taxes for an entity called
Handicap Interests International.
See id. at 2-10.
remainder of Plaintiff’s motion consists of unintelligible
The defendants in this action were not served with the
Complaint, and, accordingly, have not filed a response to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides six
grounds for relief from an order or judgment:
newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time
to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
fraud (whether previously called intrinsic
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct
an opposing party;
the judgment is void;
the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment
that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or
any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
A motion filed under Rule 60(b) “must be
made within a reasonable time.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
respect to a motion filed under Rules 60(b)(1), (2), or (3), the
motion must be made “no more than a year after the entry of
judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.”
Pro se plaintiffs are held to a less stringent
standard than individuals represented by counsel.
Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 402 (2008).
A pro se
litigant’s compliant should be “liberally construed,” and,
“however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
However, a pro se plaintiff is still required to
adhere to the rules of civil procedure.
See McNeil v. United
States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972).
Even though a plaintiff is pro se, he or she
must “set forth sufficient information to outline the elements
of [his or her] claim.”
Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183
(3d Cir. 1993) (quoting 5A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 1357, at 340 (2d ed. 1990)).
pro se plaintiff is required to present enough factual
allegations for the court, accepting those allegations as true,
to determine whether there are plausible claims that the
defendants violated the plaintiff’s federal rights.
While it is unclear what ground(s) for relief under
Rule 60(b) Plaintiff intends to assert in his motion, the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s motion must be dismissed because he has
failed to meet the requirements for any of the six grounds
listed in Rule 60(b).
Any motion filed on the basis of the grounds listed in
Rules 60(b)(1), (2), and (3) must be filed no more than one year
after the order or judgment at issue.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
Plaintiff filed his Rule 60(b) motion on October 24, 2016, more
than sixteen months after the Court’s June 29, 2015, order
dismissing his complaint.
Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff’s
motion is based on one of the grounds listed in Rules 60(b)(1),
(2), or (3), the motion must be denied.
Plaintiff also cannot meet the requirements for the
grounds stated in Rule 60(b)(4) or Rule 60(b)(5).
applies where the judgment is “void,” which occurs when the
district court “lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter or the
parties or entered ‘a decree which is not within the powers
granted to it by the law.’”
Marshall v. Bd. of Educ., 575 F.2d
417, 422 (3d Cir. 1978) (quoting United States v. Walker, 109
U.S. 258, 266 (1883)).
Those circumstances do not apply here.
Nor does the order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint fall into
any of the three categories listed in Rule 60(b)(5): Plaintiff
has not established that the judgment has been satisfied,
released, or discharged, or that it is based on an earlier
judgment that has been reversed or vacated, or that applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable.
The sole remaining ground for relief is Rule 60(b)(6),
“any other reason that justifies relief.”
Fed. R. Civ. P.
The Third Circuit has explained that a party is
entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) only upon demonstrating
“extraordinary circumstances where, without such relief, an
extreme and unexpected hardship would occur.”
Cox v. Horn, 757
F.3d 113, 115 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Sawka v. Healtheast, Inc.,
989 F.2d 138, 140 (3d Cir. 1993)).
Plaintiff’s complaint was
dismissed because it is unintelligible and does not contain a
statement of a claim in accordance with Rule 8(a).
has not provided any intelligible basis for the Court to
determine that an extreme and unexpected hardship would occur
should the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for relief from the
Indeed, Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed without
prejudice, which allows him to file another action if he
believes he has a valid claim for relief.
Plaintiff does not qualify for relief from the Court’s order
under Rule 60(b)(6).
For the reasons stated above, the Court will deny
Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the Court’s order
dated June 29, 2015.
An appropriate order follows.
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?