Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Roy v. U.S. Government at White House, DC

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

February 3, 2017

KAMAL K. ROY, Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. GOVERNMENT AT WHITE HOUSE, DC, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM

          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] The Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without granting leave to amend. Plaintiff has filed a motion for relief from the Court's order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         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. 1. 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 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 futile.” Id.

         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.” Pl.'s Rule 60(b) Mot., ECF No. 7. 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. The remainder of Plaintiff's motion consists of unintelligible handwritten pages. Id.

         The defendants in this action were not served with the Complaint, and, accordingly, have not filed a response to Plaintiff's motion.

         II. LEGAL STANDARDS

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides six grounds for relief from an order or judgment:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.