Caterbone v. National Security Agency et al
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE; ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; finding as moot 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; adopting in part Report and Recommendations re 7 Report and Recommendations.; denying 8 Motion for Reconsideration ; affirming 9 Report and Recommendations.; denying 11 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 1/31/17. (pw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STANLEY J. CATERBONE,
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, et al., :
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Before the Court are the January 3, 2017 and January 9, 2017 Reports and
Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Carlson. (Doc. Nos. 7, 9.) The Court will adopt the
January 3, 2017 Report and Recommendation in part and will adopt the January 9, 2017 Report
and Recommendation in its entirety.
On December 21, 2016, Plaintiff Stanley J. Caterbone filed a complaint seeking
injunctive relief from alleged, daily assaults to his person and property by numerous law
enforcement agencies. (See Doc. No. 1.) On December 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed an “amended”
motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 5), attaching 158 pages of exhibits to the amended
“preliminary injunction for emergency relief” (Doc. Nos. 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6). On
January 3, 2017, Magistrate Judge Carlson issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending
that this Court deny the “amended” motion for preliminary injunction and dismiss with prejudice
the above-captioned action. (Doc. No. 7 at 27-28.)
In his January 3, 2017 Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Carlson reasons
that Plaintiff’s “attenuated and unsubstantial” allegations warrant sua sponte dismissal under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (Doc. No. 7 at 9-11), and that dismissal of the
complaint is further warranted for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (id.
at 11-13). Magistrate Judge Carlson also provides that: (1) venue is proper in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (id. at 22-24); (2) Plaintiff’s claims
predating December 2014 are time-barred (id. at 19-22); (3) Plaintiff’s federal civil rights claims
for damages against Pennsylvania state agencies are barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the
United States Constitution (id. at 15-19); and that (4) Plaintiff’s constitutional tort claims against
federal agencies are barred by sovereign immunity. 1 (Id. at 13-19.) In the alternative, Magistrate
Judge Carlson provides in his January 3, 2017 Report and Recommendation that this Court may
transfer the above-captioned action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406, to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, as a substantial part of the events underlying Plaintiff’s claims occurred in
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania and numerous defendants reside in Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania. (Id. at 23-25 & n.2.)
On January 5, 2017, in lieu of filing objections, Plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration arguing, inter alia, that the Report and Recommendation violated pro se fairness
statutes, civil rights case law, and civil conspiracy case law. (Doc. No. 8.) On January 9, 2017,
Magistrate Judge Carlson issued a second Report and Recommendation, recommending that this
Court deny the motion for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 9.) Plaintiff supplemented the record with
198 pages of exhibits on January 9, 2017. (Doc. No. 10.) Thereafter, on January 26, 2017,
Plaintiff filed a “notice of appeal” which consisted of a copy of the docket, the January 9, 2017
Report and Recommendation, and the January 3, 2017 Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No.
11.) The “notice of appeal” provides no grounds for which this Court could liberally construe as
objections to either the January 3, 2017 Report and Recommendation or the January 9, 2017
The Report and Recommendation also recommends denying Plaintiff’s “amended”
motion for preliminary injunction for failure to show a likelihood of success on the merits. (Doc.
No. 7 at 27.)
Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 11.) ACCORDINGLY, upon independent review of
the record and applicable law, on this 31st day of January 2017, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Magistrate Judge Carlson’s January 3, 2017 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No.
7), is ADOPTED IN PART to the extent that Magistrate Judge Carlson recommends,
in the alternative, transferring the above-captioned action to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406;
2. Magistrate Judge Carlson’s January 9, 2017 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No.
9), is ADOPTED;
3. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 8), is DENIED;
4. The above-captioned case is transferred to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 for further
5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the above-captioned case.
s/ Yvette Kane
Yvette Kane, District Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
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?