ROUSE v. II-VI INCORPORATED et al

Filing 72

MEMORANDUM ORDER DENYING 70 Pro Se Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case and DENYING 71 Plaintiff's Motion to Docket Previously Filed Request for Discovery. This case remains CLOSED. Mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff this same day. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 07/31/2014. (lcb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AMBROSIO ROUSE,
Plaintiff,
v.
II-VI INCORPORATED,
BRUCE GLICK, CSABA SZELES,
SAMUEL J. PASQUARELLI,
BEVERLY A. BLOCK,
FRANCIS J. KRAMER, CARL J. JOHNSON,
JUDGE MARILYN J. HORAN,
JUDGE CHERYL LYNN ALLEN,
JUDGE SALLIE UPDYKE MUNDY,
JUDGE CORREALE F. STEVENS, and
JUDGE JOHN L. MUSMANNO,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-0065
United States Magistrate Judge
Cynthia Reed Eddy

MEMORANDUM ORDER
On August 26, 2013, this Court entered an Order Of Court Re: Plaintiff’s Objections to
Judge Eddy’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 43). Order of Court, (Doc. No. 49). The
Order overruled Plaintiff Rouse’s Objections and adopted the Report and Recommendation by
United States Magistrate Judge Eddy as this Court’s final order, stating as follows:
This Court agrees with Judge Eddy that the entirety of Plaintiff’s
claims are barred by threshold issues that do not relate to Plaintiff’s specific
factual averments. Therefore, discussion of these facts is unnecessary both in
the Report and Recommendation and this Court’s Order. As explained by
Judge Eddy in her Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Complaint will be
dismissed with prejudice because amendment would be futile.
Order of Court (Doc. No. 49), at 2.
Subsequently, this Court filed a “Memorandum Order Re: Plaintiff’s Motion For Recusal
(Doc. No. 54); Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration (Doc. No. 58); And Defendants’ Motion
For Sanctions (Doc. Nos. 52 And 53).” (Doc. No. 69). In it, this Court denied all four motions,
including Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 58) of the Order adopting Magistrate

Judge Eddy’s Report and Recommendation, and held: “[a]s previously ordered, Plaintiff’s
Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
On October 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed a “PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
and/or in the alternate Notice of Appeal” (capitalization and bolding in original) to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from this Court’s Orders at (Doc. Nos. 49 and 69),
the case management order of August 26, 2013, and all of the “interlocutory orders entered in
this action.” Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, document no. 00311134527, Case No. 134233. A panel of the United States Court of Appeals denied Plaintiff’s mandamus petition and
appeal on June 10, 2014 in an Order signed by Judge D. Michael Fisher, which stated in its
entirety as follows:
The foregoing mandamus petition is denied. Although a mandamus
petition is a proper means of challenging the denial of a motion for recusal,
Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 10 F.3d 155, 163 (3d Cir. 1993),
Petitioner has not shown that a reasonable person, with knowledge of all the
facts, would reasonably question Judge Schwab’s impartiality. See In re
Kensington Int’l Ltd., 368 F.3d 289, 301 & n.12 (3d Cir. 2004); In re School
Asbestos Litigation, 977 F.2d 764, 778 (3d Cir. 1992). To the extent that
Petitioner seeks to appeal from the District Court’s order granting the
defendants’ motions to dismiss, we will summarily affirm because the appeal
does not present a substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O. P.
10.6. The notice of appeal, although mistakenly submitted to this Court, was
timely filed under the separate judgment doctrine. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a); see
also LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Cmty. Ctr. Ass’n, 503 F.3d 217, 224 (3d Cir.
2007). As the Magistrate Judge properly explained, Petitioner’s claims are
foreclosed by claim and issue preclusion, see Burlington Northern R. Co. v.
Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd., 63 F.3d 1227, 1231 (3d Cir. 1995),
barred by judicial immunity, Azubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302, 303 (3d Cir.
2006), and are untimely under the applicable statute of limitations, Kach v.
Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 634 (3d Cir. 2009). (emphasis added)
Mr. Rouse then filed a Petition for Reconsideration for Rehearing En Banc, which the
Court of Appeals denied, En Banc, on July 15, 2014. Order Denying Petition for Rehearing En

2

Banc, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, document no. 003111679779, Case No. 13-4233.
The Mandate was issued on July 23, 2014.
Undaunted, Plaintiff has now filed a “Motion to Re-Open the above captioned case in
order to direct the entry of Judgment pursuant to F.R.C.P. 58(a) or, in the alternative render
Certification pursuant to F.R.C.P. 54(b), make express findings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292
and, make the proper assessment of the sufficiency of the Complaint filed in this action and
allow for the docketing and disposal of a previously filed request for discovery.” (Doc. No. 70).
In addition, Plaintiff filed a “Motion/Praecipe to Docket previously Filed Request for
Discovery.” (Doc. No. 71).
These motions must be denied as frivolous. This Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint
with prejudice because it would be futile to allow amendment, in light of the threshold bars to
his claims, denied his motion for reconsideration, and closed the case. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit kept the case closed when it summarily denied Plaintiff’s
mandamus petition and appeal because it did not present a substantial question.
The United States Court of Appeals agreed with this Court that Plaintiff’s claims are
foreclosed by claim and issue preclusion, barred by judicial immunity, and untimely under the
applicable statute of limitations, and therefore denied his Petition for Rehearing En Banc. The
law of the case requires this Court to deny the Plaintiff’s frivolous motions. See Christianson v.
Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 816 (1988) (The law of the case doctrine states that
‘when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues
in subsequent stages in the same case.’”); Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 (1983)
(generally, “when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the
same issues in subsequent stages in the same case”). Further discussion is not necessary.
3

AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2014, Plaintiff’s Motion to Re-Open (Doc. No. 70) and
his Motion/Praecipe to Docket previously Filed Request for Discovery (Doc. No. 71) are
DENIED.

/s Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge
cc:

all ECF registered counsel and Plaintiff
AMBROSIO ROUSE
2770 St. Andrews Square
Apt #2117
Allison Park, PA 15101

4